PMs have been going downhill ever since Blair left. He is the finest and highest achieving of any PM since Thatcher. No question.
I'm not sure he actually achieved anything per se. What he could do - and this is a big part of the job - is inspire a bit of confidemce.
It would be nice to have someone who can actually do the day to day of the job without being mired in scandal or undermined by infighting or drama every 5 minutes.
We’ve not had that since 2016 and it’s getting a bit wearing now.
In defence of TMay in that respect, she put herself in an almost impossible position by losing her majority.
I'd say we sort of did have that with Boris up until Partygate. Granted that only gave him a whole 6 months of the appearance of competent government, followed by 12 months before the stories started to come out.
This is the third of three entirely dufferent sorts of shambles. The lesson of the current situation is if you are a take-over-mid-term PM you need to be largely consensual and unctroversial or get your own mandate pretty quickly.
I'm no friend of the Tory party but it's impossible not to notice that some Tory PMs have been far better at the job than others. The quality of Tory PMs has been falling monotonically. David Cameron - who was PM for six whole years and who in his valedictory speech cited the law introducing gay marriage as one of his major achievements - seems to have been a highly capable leader compared to his successor Theresa May...
...who apparently had no actually workable plan regarding Brexit, and who has zero achievements by which she can be remembered, but who nevertheless seems to have been highly capable compared to Boris Johnson...
...who despite everything, despite being a man whose epitaph might reasonably say "You lot have to obey the rules, but I don't, OK?", actually seems highly capable if you compare him with Liz Truss...
...the absolute sh*tclown premier the country is unlucky enough to be saddled with at the moment...
...the woman who patently obviously couldn't run a whelk stall but who can't half read a prepared script from behind a twisty pillar, the woman who given the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon may even turn out to be the country's last PM of all.
David Cameron would be better. Theresa May would be better. And, dare I say it, even Boris Johnson would be better.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Göring-by-Sea?
Himmler Hempstead?
Hess(le)?
Hailsham, Steyning, Graffham
Bormannwood.
Volkstone.
And Reichborough.
Göring-by-Sea, obviously.
Or the local train out of Reading: Heil-turst, Pang-Aryan-Born, Göring and Streatley, Choltitz, and Didcot Parkway.
Oh, I completely forgot to mention - did the Cholsey & Wallingford railway last Sunday - all 2.5 miles of it
Was 1940s weekend - the Churchill impersonator looked more like Capt. Mainwaring!
Probably one of those Home Counties fascists. But at least he made the trains go in time.
Does help not having a timetable, as Sunil remarks.
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
PMs have been going downhill ever since Blair left. He is the finest and highest achieving of any PM since Thatcher. No question.
I'm not sure he actually achieved anything per se. What he could do - and this is a big part of the job - is inspire a bit of confidemce.
It would be nice to have someone who can actually do the day to day of the job without being mired in scandal or undermined by infighting or drama every 5 minutes.
We’ve not had that since 2016 and it’s getting a bit wearing now.
In defence of TMay in that respect, she put herself in an almost impossible position by losing her majority.
I'd say we sort of did have that with Boris up until Partygate. Granted that only gave him a whole 6 months of the appearance of competent government, followed by 12 months before the stories started to come out.
This is the third of three entirely dufferent sorts of shambles. The lesson of the current situation is if you are a take-over-mid-term PM you need to be largely consensual and unctroversial or get your own mandate pretty quickly.
I'm no friend of the Tory party but it's impossible not to notice that some Tory PMs have been far better at the job than others. The quality of Tory PMs has been falling monotonically.
Falling as one colour? That's implausible.
Do you mean metronomically? It wouldn't make much sense but it would make more sense than that.
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
Göring-by-Sea?
Himmler Hempstead?
Hess(le)?
Hailsham, Steyning, Graffham
Bormannwood.
Volkstone.
And Reichborough.
Göring-by-Sea, obviously.
Or the local train out of Reading: Heil-turst, Pang-Aryan-Born, Göring and Streatley, Choltitz, and Didcot Parkway.
Oh, I completely forgot to mention - did the Cholsey & Wallingford railway last Sunday - all 2.5 miles of it
Was 1940s weekend - the Churchill impersonator looked more like Capt. Mainwaring!
Probably one of those Home Counties fascists. But at least he made the trains go in time.
Does help not having a timetable, as Sunil remarks.
Same genius as Lukashenko banning inflation yesterday.
PMs have been going downhill ever since Blair left. He is the finest and highest achieving of any PM since Thatcher. No question.
I'm not sure he actually achieved anything per se. What he could do - and this is a big part of the job - is inspire a bit of confidemce.
It would be nice to have someone who can actually do the day to day of the job without being mired in scandal or undermined by infighting or drama every 5 minutes.
We’ve not had that since 2016 and it’s getting a bit wearing now.
In defence of TMay in that respect, she put herself in an almost impossible position by losing her majority.
I'd say we sort of did have that with Boris up until Partygate. Granted that only gave him a whole 6 months of the appearance of competent government, followed by 12 months before the stories started to come out.
This is the third of three entirely dufferent sorts of shambles. The lesson of the current situation is if you are a take-over-mid-term PM you need to be largely consensual and unctroversial or get your own mandate pretty quickly.
I'm no friend of the Tory party but it's impossible not to notice that some Tory PMs have been far better at the job than others. The quality of Tory PMs has been falling monotonically. David Cameron - who was PM for six whole years and who in his valedictory speech cited the law introducing gay marriage as one of his major achievements - seems to have been a highly capable leader compared to his successor Theresa May...
...who apparently had no actually workable plan regarding Brexit, and who has zero achievements by which she can be remembered, but who nevertheless seems to have been highly capable compared to Boris Johnson...
...who despite everything, despite being a man whose epitaph might reasonably say "You lot have to obey the rules, but I don't, OK?", actually seems highly capable if you compare him with Liz Truss...
...the absolute sh*tclown premier the country is unlucky enough to be saddled with at the moment...
...the woman who patently obviously couldn't run a whelk stall but who can't half read a prepared script from behind a twisty pillar, the woman who given the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon may even turn out to be the country's last PM of all.
David Cameron would be better. Theresa May would be better. And, dare I say it, even Boris Johnson would be better.
But thanks for everything, Tory party.
Does that include all the state of the art weapons to Ukraine?
I'm not sure that's as big of a deal as you think, it's German car makers suffering from the EU not resolving trade and customs issues. UK exports to Germany are up.
Plus a reduction in our deficit with Germany is a good thing, especially if there has been domestic substitution.
Well if German exports to the UK are down, while British exports to Germany are up, then that's a mammoth improvement in our trade deficit.
I guess the figures speak for themselves as to who "had the most to lose".
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
Hmm. Re Biden's striking remarks about "Armageddon" last night:
"Perhaps the most troubling interpretation is that Biden’s most recent briefing from the intelligence community included something particularly ominous, and it was on Biden's mind last night."
- Russia needs to be convinced that America will not stand for the use of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Biden is doing the “I can play that game too” strategy. - He is hinting his door is open - note his reference to the off ramp. - I suspect he has made the comments at a fundraiser rather than a formal event like a press conference so as not to provoke a battle of the announcements with Vlad.
I sometimes have my doubts over Biden’s lucidity but I am absolutely convinced that this was very much scripted.
As for how you read it: you can choose to be concerned or reassured. On one hand, it shows that he considers the situation serious enough that he needs to say it. That suggests there has to be SOME concern in Washington that Putin might actually consider tactical nukes. On the other hand, by setting out his stall he is confirming that he can play the deterrence game too - I.e, you don’t want to go there, there will be consequences. De-escalate.
I am not a fan of Biden but I think he (and/or his advisors) played that one quite well.
Believe you me, State is very very focused on trying to prevent nuclear war
PMs have been going downhill ever since Blair left. He is the finest and highest achieving of any PM since Thatcher. No question.
I'm not sure he actually achieved anything per se. What he could do - and this is a big part of the job - is inspire a bit of confidemce.
It would be nice to have someone who can actually do the day to day of the job without being mired in scandal or undermined by infighting or drama every 5 minutes.
We’ve not had that since 2016 and it’s getting a bit wearing now.
In defence of TMay in that respect, she put herself in an almost impossible position by losing her majority.
I'd say we sort of did have that with Boris up until Partygate. Granted that only gave him a whole 6 months of the appearance of competent government, followed by 12 months before the stories started to come out.
This is the third of three entirely dufferent sorts of shambles. The lesson of the current situation is if you are a take-over-mid-term PM you need to be largely consensual and unctroversial or get your own mandate pretty quickly.
I'm no friend of the Tory party but it's impossible not to notice that some Tory PMs have been far better at the job than others. The quality of Tory PMs has been falling monotonically. David Cameron - who was PM for six whole years and who in his valedictory speech cited the law introducing gay marriage as one of his major achievements - seems to have been a highly capable leader compared to his successor Theresa May...
...who apparently had no actually workable plan regarding Brexit, and who has zero achievements by which she can be remembered, but who nevertheless seems to have been highly capable compared to Boris Johnson...
...who despite everything, despite being a man whose epitaph might reasonably say "You lot have to obey the rules, but I don't, OK?", actually seems highly capable if you compare him with Liz Truss...
...the absolute sh*tclown premier the country is unlucky enough to be saddled with at the moment...
...the woman who patently obviously couldn't run a whelk stall but who can't half read a prepared script from behind a twisty pillar, the woman who given the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon may even turn out to be the country's last PM of all.
David Cameron would be better. Theresa May would be better. And, dare I say it, even Boris Johnson would be better.
But thanks for everything, Tory party.
Obsession with gay marriage and the decline of the West... I wonder where I've heard that patter before?
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
PMs have been going downhill ever since Blair left. He is the finest and highest achieving of any PM since Thatcher. No question.
I'm not sure he actually achieved anything per se. What he could do - and this is a big part of the job - is inspire a bit of confidemce.
It would be nice to have someone who can actually do the day to day of the job without being mired in scandal or undermined by infighting or drama every 5 minutes.
We’ve not had that since 2016 and it’s getting a bit wearing now.
In defence of TMay in that respect, she put herself in an almost impossible position by losing her majority.
I'd say we sort of did have that with Boris up until Partygate. Granted that only gave him a whole 6 months of the appearance of competent government, followed by 12 months before the stories started to come out.
This is the third of three entirely dufferent sorts of shambles. The lesson of the current situation is if you are a take-over-mid-term PM you need to be largely consensual and unctroversial or get your own mandate pretty quickly.
I'm no friend of the Tory party but it's impossible not to notice that some Tory PMs have been far better at the job than others. The quality of Tory PMs has been falling monotonically. David Cameron - who was PM for six whole years and who in his valedictory speech cited the law introducing gay marriage as one of his major achievements - seems to have been a highly capable leader compared to his successor Theresa May...
...who apparently had no actually workable plan regarding Brexit, and who has zero achievements by which she can be remembered, but who nevertheless seems to have been highly capable compared to Boris Johnson...
...who despite everything, despite being a man whose epitaph might reasonably say "You lot have to obey the rules, but I don't, OK?", actually seems highly capable if you compare him with Liz Truss...
...the absolute sh*tclown premier the country is unlucky enough to be saddled with at the moment...
...the woman who patently obviously couldn't run a whelk stall but who can't half read a prepared script from behind a twisty pillar, the woman who given the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon may even turn out to be the country's last PM of all.
David Cameron would be better. Theresa May would be better. And, dare I say it, even Boris Johnson would be better.
But thanks for everything, Tory party.
Obsession with gay marriage and the decline of the West... I wonder where I've heard that patter before?
He can't be Donald Trump, he hasn't mentioned walls yet.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Given a sizeable number of people live in communal apartments, this is a pretty broad regulation defining the date central heating can be switched on, how many hours a day it can run and what it can be set to. It is split by zone, from a few Alpine locations where limitations are minimal, to the South where the heating is only allowed to come on 5 hours a day for a few weeks a year.
Also note the article is from 2020 - Italy's approach this year has been to reset the regulations as 1 degree less on the the thermostat, one hour less per day, one week less on the start and end dates (broadly, I liked the idea and it is how I've set up my heating for winter)
That seems sensible. A similar campaign here could mean no risk of blackouts. Liz Truss is an idiot.
Liz Truss represents the end state of a weird subclass of libertarian thinking. An absolute belief that the state should not exercise any kind of control over individual citizens, not even the most minimal control of persuasive argument & influence, because to do so is to deny the liberty of individual citizens to do whatever they damn well please & take the consequences. When those consequences only affect them as individuals this is a perfectly workable moral system, but it fails utterly when collective action is required to stave off consequences that affect all of us.
The weird thing here is that, perhaps surprisingly, in many cases all that is actually required is to explain the inevitable consequences and request co-operation & people are happy to comply, within the limits set by their individual circumstances. What could be more libertarian than that? Individuals know their personal circumstances & can do their best to act appropritely if they so choose, given the information that the goverment presents them with.
In this case, to get through this winter without blackouts no one needs to go without heating or power: Some attention to necessity is all that’s required, as far as I can tell. Yet the government refuses to do anything at all. Madness.
Yep, the line in her conf speech she delivered with the most relish and authenticity was this one -
"I have no interest in looking over people's shoulder to see if they're buying 2 for 1 deals in the supermarket."
Sounds a bit of a throwaway but it wasn't. It says a lot about the brain chemistry that has somehow wriggled into government.
Yes, its good isn't it?
The state should be doing that which it needs to do, and ideally doing it well. Do less, but do it better.
The state doesn't need to be pissing about issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals etc
It's good if you share the libertarian fringe mindset, yes.
You think the state should be issuing decrees about 2 for 1 deals?
What is wrong with the idea of do less, but do it better? Should our state really be the jack of all trades, master of none?
The 2-for-1 thing is a staggeringly disingenuous way of putting it. Is controlling the sale of very unhealthy foods to (long run) save the country money and help people stay healthy less important that FrEeDoM oF cHoIcE then I dunno what to say. The logical conclusion of that strawmannish argument is to legalise everything because people aught to be able to make their own minds about whether or not they should smoke crack.
The notion that the nanny state is stopping people doing things they enjoy is bollocks. Controlling harmful factors is a core responsibility of government.
Libertarians get hugely upset about random things government does, while completely overlooking other things government does. There are huge numbers of rules around the preparation of food, food safety, hygiene in kitchens making food for public consumption, allowed ingredients in food, etc. etc. etc. All of which work very well, so libertarians happily munch away on shop-bought sandwiches without recognising the intrusions the state has made to make those sandwiches safe.
"X regulation is good" does not imply "all regulations are good".
But this isn't even a regulation, it's just advice on how best to save power and at what times of day appliances should be used to minimise grid impact and avoid power cuts.
There's at least some evidence that a slightly more communitarian (as opposed to full on Barty) approach can work. The whole piece is worth a read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/electric-cars-help-california-electricity-grid/671420/ ...When the state last suffered such a widespread heat wave two years ago, its grid lapsed into rolling blackouts. But this time, the grid held fast. State officials have said that an emergency cellphone alert that asked residents to reduce their power usage helped save it. Within 45 minutes of the alert going out, the state had cut more than 2,000 megawatts of electricity, roughly as much energy as it normally takes to power more than 1.5 million homes. And the grid was fine....
It's such an easy thing to do, ask people to turn off their AC for 30 mins and we avoid a catastrophe.
Demand spikes are quite a big part of blackouts - most of the time there's sufficient generation. Until we have a full smart grid (including the user side of things), then it's impossible for individual choices to make much difference without some sort of central intervention.
I've no problem with libertarian principles, if they are taken alongside other principles of equal importance - and those of greater importance (notably, the dictates of common sense).
An interesting development is that people who have a battery backup as part of a solar installation can rent part of the capacity to the grid, for a nice price for the power.
They’ve just started doing this is California. Think very distributed grid storage.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
So - exactly like the Scottish Parliament?
No. Completely different organizations, at equal level, with London having no a priori authority other than what influencve it had in negotiatiing things like the SOSship. Think Tories and DUP in the May/Johnson era.
Edit: It did convert to the SCUP - which fits your model much better.
It’s why I would maintain that Cameron did more damage to this country than even Johnson did (who of course he opened the door to), and Truss is likely to do.
Utterly dreadful PM.
Why is importing less stuff from Germany bad?
I think economists generally reckon free trade is good - for wealth creation, productivity and investment. UK trade with Germany (imports and exports) is off by about one third relative to competitor countries since Brexit per the figures, which is quite a big relative restriction of trade,
Putin is a man who lived in a bubble and bought huge IKEA tables to avoid covid. He doesn’t look like a man with a death wish.
He would probably survive nuclear war. He'll have a good bunker somewhere
It's the rest of us that need to worry
If the argument that runs like this
* Russian forces have been having logistical difficulties in the past few months, especially in the Kharkov area, * therefore their much more powerful strategic nukes probably don't work, and if they did work they probably wouldn't be able to get it together to launch them, * so bring escalation on
is sensible and sane,
then surely the analogous argument that runs like this
* Russian commanders have been going home in bodybags because their security is subpar, * therefore in strategic nuclear war the much more powerful guy called Putin would get blown to bits whenever the enemy decided
is also sensible?
There is a heck of a lot of insanity about, @Leon. I came across one British Tory saying it all came down to Putin climbing over the fence and stealing his neighbour's property, rather as though he's a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere.
One just has to ask "What is your reason for believing that large majorities of people from Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporozhe, and Kherson wish their areas to be in Ukraine?" to trigger a wave of "See this big stick, that's why, you scum!"-style hatred.
"a familiar hate target such as for example a gypsy in a fascist village in the Home Counties somewhere."
You REALLY need to get out more. As a propagandist you are a busted pair of deuces.
I am still waiting for the guy to name these fascist villages. I know there are a lot of internet restrictions in Russia, but surely he has had time to look them up by now.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
So - exactly like the Scottish Parliament?
No. Completely different organizations, at equal level, with London having no a priori authority other than what influencve it had in negotiatiing things like the SOSship. Think Tories and DUP in the May/Johnson era.
Their relationship was nothing like that. To put it only at its most obvious, they shared a whip. Two Scottish Unionists were leaders of the Conservative party, many more served in Cabinets. And the only reason there were separate organisations was because that suited both sides and there was no pressing need to merge until leadership elections became a thing in 1965. Just as it did with first the Irish and then the Ulster Unionists, who eventually of course went the other way and did become independent.
If I were to go for a better parallel it might be of the Bank of Scotland within Lloyds. Yes, there's a different name, different branding and a different hierarchy, but it's still very much part of an overall whole.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
So - exactly like the Scottish Parliament?
No. Completely different organizations, at equal level, with London having no a priori authority other than what influencve it had in negotiatiing things like the SOSship. Think Tories and DUP in the May/Johnson era.
Their relationship was nothing like that. To put it only at its most obvious, they shared a whip. Two Scottish Unionists were leaders of the Conservative party, many more served in Cabinets. And the only reason there were separate organisations was because that suited both sides and there was no pressing need to merge until leadership elections became a thing in 1965. Just as it did with first the Irish and then the Ulster Unionists, who eventually of course went the other way and did become independent.
If I were to go for a better parallel it might be of the Bank of Scotland within Lloyds. Yes, there's a different name, different branding and a different hierarchy, but it's still very much part of an overall whole.
Thganks - interesting discussion. From what I heard from older people, the perception was indeed that they were quite separate organizations, whatever individuals did in UKG (though what you describe sounds more like a coalition government with geographical rather than political division of the members).
BoS and Lloyds is much more like the SCUP and C&UP today, though. Or better still Slab and Labour - single organization for Electoral Commission purposes of accounting (the 'Scottish' on poll voting papers being a specific legal fiddle), cf Bos and Lloyds being a single organization for FSCS purposes.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Only the public face.
For example, the TRG was a liberal unionist front organisation
It’s why I would maintain that Cameron did more damage to this country than even Johnson did (who of course he opened the door to), and Truss is likely to do.
Utterly dreadful PM.
Why is importing less stuff from Germany bad?
I think economists generally reckon free trade is good - for wealth creation, productivity and investment. UK trade with Germany (imports and exports) is off by about one third relative to competitor countries since Brexit per the figures, which is quite a big relative restriction of trade,
Exactly. A trade deficit with a country doesn't mean you are "losing" to them. That Donald Trump thinks this is what it means should be something of a tell there.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
I am unclear as to what point you are making. Are you saying that Musk's hurt feelings over being criticised over a tweet would justify deliberately degrading the Starlink terminals service to Ukrainian troops on an active frontline? Because that would be a ludicrous take.
I don't actually think that is what is happening, by the way. I suspect the Starlink service, like many of Musk's innovations, is over-hyped and not actually very good, and the proximity of this to the recent Twitter spat is merely coincidental.
In 1992, the polls had been drifting blue-to-red all summer, and that drift continued at roughly the same speed. Even at Christmas '92, the score was roughly C33 L48.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Only the public face.
For example, the TRG was a liberal unionist front organisation
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
I am unclear as to what point you are making. Are you saying that Musk's hurt feelings over being criticised over a tweet would justify deliberately degrading the Starlink terminals service to Ukrainian troops on an active frontline? Because that would be a ludicrous take.
I don't actually think that is what is happening, by the way. I suspect the Starlink service, like many of Musk's innovations, is over-hyped and not actually very good, and the proximity of this to the recent Twitter spat is merely coincidental.
Whatever the truth SpaceX have done some cool stuff. What he's achieved is astonishing, and I'd so love him to astonish us more
Hype you're right about, but Tesla cars really are surreally brilliant.
In 2005 65% didn't vote labour either. Didn't stop them winning 5 more years in power. We have rarely (and not for a long time) had a system where the ruling party achieved over 50% of the vote.
Last time a single party won with 50% of the vote was the Conservative landslide in 1900.
Incorrect, they were in coalition with the Liberal Unionists at the time.
The previous occasion was in fact the Liberals in 1880.
Of course the Liberal Unionists owned the Conservative Party until Michael Ancram retired. Took the Tories less than 20 years to f*** all up
He can't have been a Liberal Unionist. They were dissolved in 1912.
I think you may be confusing them with the Scottish Unionists, which were a semi-independent part of the Conservatives until 1965.
Er, surely the UPS was fully independent (to coin an expression)?
Define 'fully independent' and I'll tell you.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
No, seriously. Different management, finances, voting where needed, policy disagreements and where necessary two fingers up to London. Edit: also different membership!
So - exactly like the Scottish Parliament?
No. Completely different organizations, at equal level, with London having no a priori authority other than what influencve it had in negotiatiing things like the SOSship. Think Tories and DUP in the May/Johnson era.
Their relationship was nothing like that. To put it only at its most obvious, they shared a whip. Two Scottish Unionists were leaders of the Conservative party, many more served in Cabinets. And the only reason there were separate organisations was because that suited both sides and there was no pressing need to merge until leadership elections became a thing in 1965. Just as it did with first the Irish and then the Ulster Unionists, who eventually of course went the other way and did become independent.
If I were to go for a better parallel it might be of the Bank of Scotland within Lloyds. Yes, there's a different name, different branding and a different hierarchy, but it's still very much part of an overall whole.
Thganks - interesting discussion. From what I heard from older people, the perception was indeed that they were quite separate organizations, whatever individuals did in UKG (though what you describe sounds more like a coalition government with geographical rather than political division of the members).
I think it's worth remembering that actually all local Conservative/Unionist associations were very independent, certainly until the 1940s. For example, many of them still called themselves 'Liberal Nationalist' until the 1960s and there were certainly cases of local associations running candidates against the wishes of London and sometimes even against London-approved candidates (e.g. see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_upon_Tyne_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1950s or still more famously in East Fife in 1918). Neville Chamberlain is always called a Conservative, but you wouldn't have called him that to his face. He was first a Unionist and then a National MP in his election addresses in Birmingham and referred scathignly to 'that odious name of 'Conservative'.' Similarly, they didn't publish membership figures until I think the 1970s, or have a formal central system of accounts until 1968 although it had been gradually developing on an ad-hoc basis since Woolton's reforms in the 1940s.
Sure, in Scotland there was a distinctive element to this because of the very English nature of much of Conservatism. In Scotland, for example, there wasn't a close link to the established church as the Presbyterian style Church of Scotland is much less 'established' (if it is at all) than the Church of England. And party members saw themselves as to some extent a 'separate party,' but it's going way too far to say they were a different party and certainly to compare them to the DUP.
If you want a definitive ruling on this, Twentieth Century British Political Facts which is sort of a Bible of political historians, there is no 'Scottish Unionist Party' listed separately from the Conservatives and all Scottish Unionist MPs are included in one of the Conservatives, Liberal Unionist and Liberal National groupings.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
I am unclear as to what point you are making. Are you saying that Musk's hurt feelings over being criticised over a tweet would justify deliberately degrading the Starlink terminals service to Ukrainian troops on an active frontline? Because that would be a ludicrous take.
I don't actually think that is what is happening, by the way. I suspect the Starlink service, like many of Musk's innovations, is over-hyped and not actually very good, and the proximity of this to the recent Twitter spat is merely coincidental.
No, I’m just saying his slightly peevish tweets now are explained by the fact he’s in a bad mood after his earlier opinions on Ukraine got such hostility
Honestly. He got slews of death threats for exploring peace. Can’t blame him for being in a huff
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
I am unclear as to what point you are making. Are you saying that Musk's hurt feelings over being criticised over a tweet would justify deliberately degrading the Starlink terminals service to Ukrainian troops on an active frontline? Because that would be a ludicrous take.
I don't actually think that is what is happening, by the way. I suspect the Starlink service, like many of Musk's innovations, is over-hyped and not actually very good, and the proximity of this to the recent Twitter spat is merely coincidental.
Whatever the truth SpaceX have done some cool stuff. What he's achieved is astonishing, and I'd so love him to astonish us more
Hype you're right about, but Tesla cars really are surreally brilliant.
The Model X is shit.
Starlink is very, very good, compared to competitors. Unless you happen to be in a small number of areas where there is very high contention at certain times of day. And SpaceX is certainly trying to fix that, by launching sats at a faster rate than, I think*, anyone has done. Ever. And spending quite a lot on the next generation. Including buildin the largest rocket in history, to launch them.
*In the high days of the Soviet Union, their spy sats were film based and very short lived. So they launched something like once a week. But that was individual satellites per launch.
So more than the Truss Tories are polling on most of the latest polls amongst under 50s believe that Charles was anointed King by God?
Of course Charles was anointed by God whatever the rest of the public might believe as what God does does not depend on opinion polls
He may have been appointed by God, he certainly hasn't been anointed yet. That happens when that bleating ninny ++Cantuar pours cooking oil on his head next June.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
The next big test of German public opinion is or are the Lower Saxony Regional elections on Sunday.
The ruling CDU/SPD coalition has 105 of the 135 seats in the Landtag and basically came into being because after the last set of elections it was the only option for stable majority Government (sounds a bit like 2010 in the UK).
The previous SPD/Green coalition lost ground in the last election finishing on 67 seats so two short of a majority.
The latest Forschungsgruppe poll as follows (changes from 2017 election):
While the CDU/SPD would still retain a comfortable overall majority, a drop of 9.5% is hardly a ringing endorsement (Liz Truss might disagree). The SPD and Greens might, by virtue of the Green advance, be able to form a new majority and especially if Birkner's FDP miss the cut.
Birkner refused to join with the SPD and Greens in 2017 - perhaps, given what has happened since, he might take a different line. IF the FDP do make it over the threshold, a CDU/Green/FDP might also have a majority in the Landtag.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
The world survived the Cold War because we had sane leaders. The USA was humiliated in Vietnam, but Nixon didn't lash out by nuking the Vietcong.
The only people who are dangerous fools are those who think Putin ought to get what he wants from nuclear blackmail, which will only create more and more blackmail.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
The Cuban Missile crisis was resolved by Kruschev withdrawing his missiles from Cuba, with Ameica quietly removing theirs from Turkey.
For example, the TRG was a liberal unionist front organisation
I got told off on here for suggesting Boris Johnson was a Liberal Unionist - his idol, Churchill, was.
Oddly, Churchill was never actually a Liberal Unionist. He was elected in Oldham as a Conservative member of the Unionist coalition, then crossed the floor, then came back via the short lived ‘Constitutionalist’ movement and finally rejoined the Conservatives just after they formally readopted that name in 1925.
So more than the Truss Tories are polling on most of the latest polls amongst under 50s believe that Charles was anointed King by God?
Of course Charles was anointed by God whatever the rest of the public might believe as what God does does not depend on opinion polls
He may have been appointed by God, he certainly hasn't been anointed yet. That happens when that bleating ninny ++Cantuar pours cooking oil on his head next June.
That is the formal ceremony of the anointing yes and what a glorious day it will be
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
Hardly. It would be the equivalent of removing all Soviet missiles and military personnel from Cuba. Which in fact is what Kennedy insisted on even though he threw Khrushchev a bone with the slightly earlier withdrawal of obsolete American missiles from Turkey and Italy in the aftermath.
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
It's Putin who is making nuclear threats in an attempt to change the status quo. We're have to stand firm and ensure he makes a difficult compromise with reality.
Hmm. Wait for more details, but nothing in the article indicates he was actually attacking anyone. Police overreaction?
Sounds like suicide-by-cop. Wielding a knife at a Police station is only likely to end one way.
That’s not how it should work in a civilised society. I don’t want my police to be trigger-happy. We should expect rational, calculated deescalation wherever possible.
So more than the Truss Tories are polling on most of the latest polls amongst under 50s believe that Charles was anointed King by God?
Of course Charles was anointed by God whatever the rest of the public might believe as what God does does not depend on opinion polls
He may have been appointed by God, he certainly hasn't been anointed yet. That happens when that bleating ninny ++Cantuar pours cooking oil on his head next June.
That is the formal ceremony of the anointing yes and what a glorious day it will be
@elonmusk replying to @FT Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
Fuxsake the Starlink thing was one genuinely good thing Musk did early in this conflict. If he's dicking around with it now, that's not good.
He's not doing that
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
If Putin wants peace/not to be beaten, he can withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and other territories he's invaded and bring his troops back to his own borders. That is peace.
You really are a dangerous fool. That’s like Kennedy saying in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the only way he’s willing to de-escalate is if Soviet troops withdraw from all of Eastern Europe. The world survived the Cold War by making difficult compromises.
The Cuban Missile crisis was resolved by Kruschev withdrawing his missiles from Cuba, with Ameica quietly removing theirs from Turkey.
Does anyone know if she’s spoken to Drakeford yet?
If so it may just be she doesn’t like Sturgeon.
Many leaders that UK deals with are probably disliked by the PM but diplomacy normally means you grin and bear it. Ignoring Sturgeon isn’t a good look for a so called unionist .
As is so often the case, I'm late to the debate on today's polling about which I have a few thoughts.
The 38 Degrees poll for London (Lab 59, Con 22, LD 13) isn't as wild as it sounds - other recent London polling has shown enormous Labour leads.
In December 2019, Labour won 48% of the vote, the Conservatives 32% and the LDs 15% - that translated to 49 seats for Labour, 21 for the Conservatives and 3 for the Liberal Democrats and while that was the same as after 2017 that masked quite a bit of churn.
The new poll shows a 10.5% swing from Conservative to Labour (compared with the national 20% swing indicated by Redfield & Wilton for example).
Of the current 20 London Conservative seats, some of the sitting MPs face LD challengers who ran on a strong anti-Brexit ticket in 2019 and I just need convincing that's going to be possible to repeat. Wimbledon, for instance, was a Labour seat in the Blair years and might well be so again if the LD 2019 vote proves to be a chimera.
As for Julia Lopez, a 20% swing in Hornchurch & Upminster would reduce her 23,000 majority to something like 1,500 but she'd survive. Conversely, for all the poll swing, the evidence from the local elections is the LDs won't drop Richmond Park, Twickenham or Kington & Surbiton (you know the old phrase " to lose one leader at a General Election might be considered foolish, to lose two..."). The Conservatives might drop a former leader in Uxbridge & South Ruislip I suppose (if he stands).
Nonetheless, if the London swing is 10% and the national swing is above 15% there must be huge swings elsewhere - last night's local by-elections, by definition a small and wholly unrepresentative sample (up there with Scottish sub samples in truth), were very good for Labour but superficially less so for the LDs.
A rampant Labour Party may well perversely help the Conservatives enabling it to hold seats which might otherwise have gone LD - I can't imagine Starmer would be too bothered if his majority were 200 or 300 but I'd argue a Conservative Party with 150 seats would be in a better shape than one with 100 seats inasmuch as it would have survived an existential threat. The most extreme polling this week has toyed with the Conservatives not just being the third party in the Commons (behind the SNP) but perhaps the fourth (behind the LDs). The latter would be the existential threat, not the former, catastrophic though the former would be).
Comments
...who apparently had no actually workable plan regarding Brexit, and who has zero achievements by which she can be remembered, but who nevertheless seems to have been highly capable compared to Boris Johnson...
...who despite everything, despite being a man whose epitaph might reasonably say "You lot have to obey the rules, but I don't, OK?", actually seems highly capable if you compare him with Liz Truss...
...the absolute sh*tclown premier the country is unlucky enough to be saddled with at the moment...
...the woman who patently obviously couldn't run a whelk stall but who can't half read a prepared script from behind a twisty pillar, the woman who given the growing possibility of nuclear Armageddon may even turn out to be the country's last PM of all.
David Cameron would be better. Theresa May would be better. And, dare I say it, even Boris Johnson would be better.
But thanks for everything, Tory party.
You are a deeply unpleasant individual
Do you mean metronomically? It wouldn't make much sense but it would make more sense than that.
Or even monotonously?
I guess the figures speak for themselves as to who "had the most to lose".
Edit: obvs shared a whip with the CP of rUK.
I would have said it had in practice as much independence as the Scottish Parliament, and your lot never tire of telling us that's not independent.
NEW: Ukraine troops reported outages of Starlink devices on frontline, hindering efforts to liberate territory from Russian forces, Ukrainian officials & soldiers told us.
My first @FT byline, with star squad @MehulAtLarge, @felschwartz, Roman Olearchyk.
-----
@elonmusk replying to @FT
Bad reporting by FT. This article falsely claims that Starlink terminals & service were paid for, when only a small percentage have been.
This operation has cost SpaceX $80M & will exceed $100M by end of year.
As for what’s happening on the battlefield, that’s classified.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1578433482757271552
They’ve just started doing this is California. Think very distributed grid storage.
He is understandably pissed off that his attempt to suggest a possible peace deal (which, BTW, probably gave Ukraine most of what it wants) was met with howls of outrage and abuse from people who think we need to beat Putin to a pulp, despite him having nuclear weapons
Edit: It did convert to the SCUP - which fits your model much better.
If I were to go for a better parallel it might be of the Bank of Scotland within Lloyds. Yes, there's a different name, different branding and a different hierarchy, but it's still very much part of an overall whole.
BoS and Lloyds is much more like the SCUP and C&UP today, though. Or better still Slab and Labour - single organization for Electoral Commission purposes of accounting (the 'Scottish' on poll voting papers being a specific legal fiddle), cf Bos and Lloyds being a single organization for FSCS purposes.
For example, the TRG was a liberal unionist front organisation
I don't actually think that is what is happening, by the way. I suspect the Starlink service, like many of Musk's innovations, is over-hyped and not actually very good, and the proximity of this to the recent Twitter spat is merely coincidental.
Of course Charles was anointed by God whatever the rest of the public might believe as what God does does not depend on opinion polls
Hype you're right about, but Tesla cars really are surreally brilliant.
Sure, in Scotland there was a distinctive element to this because of the very English nature of much of Conservatism. In Scotland, for example, there wasn't a close link to the established church as the Presbyterian style Church of Scotland is much less 'established' (if it is at all) than the Church of England. And party members saw themselves as to some extent a 'separate party,' but it's going way too far to say they were a different party and certainly to compare them to the DUP.
If you want a definitive ruling on this, Twentieth Century British Political Facts which is sort of a Bible of political historians, there is no 'Scottish Unionist Party' listed separately from the Conservatives and all Scottish Unionist MPs are included in one of the Conservatives, Liberal Unionist and Liberal National groupings.
Honestly. He got slews of death threats for exploring peace. Can’t blame him for being in a huff
https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1578433281212968961
They know full well that they are vetoing Saturday evening football with that kind of statement.
Starlink is very, very good, compared to competitors. Unless you happen to be in a small number of areas where there is very high contention at certain times of day. And SpaceX is certainly trying to fix that, by launching sats at a faster rate than, I think*, anyone has done. Ever. And spending quite a lot on the next generation. Including buildin the largest rocket in history, to launch them.
*In the high days of the Soviet Union, their spy sats were film based and very short lived. So they launched something like once a week. But that was individual satellites per launch.
Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC it was "absurd" and "unprecedented" that she had yet to hear from the new PM.
Ms Sturgeon had talks with Theresa May and Boris Johnson within days of them being appointed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63175102
If so it may just be she doesn’t like Sturgeon.
The ruling CDU/SPD coalition has 105 of the 135 seats in the Landtag and basically came into being because after the last set of elections it was the only option for stable majority Government (sounds a bit like 2010 in the UK).
The previous SPD/Green coalition lost ground in the last election finishing on 67 seats so two short of a majority.
The latest Forschungsgruppe poll as follows (changes from 2017 election):
SPD: 33.0 (-3.9)
CDU: 28.0 (-5.6)
Greens: 16.0 (+7.3)
Alternativ:10.0% (+3.8)
FDP: 5.0% (-2.5)
Linke: 3.5% (-1.1)
While the CDU/SPD would still retain a comfortable overall majority, a drop of 9.5% is hardly a ringing endorsement (Liz Truss might disagree). The SPD and Greens might, by virtue of the Green advance, be able to form a new majority and especially if Birkner's FDP miss the cut.
Birkner refused to join with the SPD and Greens in 2017 - perhaps, given what has happened since, he might take a different line. IF the FDP do make it over the threshold, a CDU/Green/FDP might also have a majority in the Landtag.
One to watch on Sunday evening perhaps...
The only people who are dangerous fools are those who think Putin ought to get what he wants from nuclear blackmail, which will only create more and more blackmail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-63173045
Hmm. Wait for more details, but nothing in the article indicates he was actually attacking anyone. Police overreaction?
At risk of being flippant, imagine what they would have done if he’d been holding a cup of coffee.
Anyway, let’s wait for the IOPC.
This thread has been sacked by Truss
As is so often the case, I'm late to the debate on today's polling about which I have a few thoughts.
The 38 Degrees poll for London (Lab 59, Con 22, LD 13) isn't as wild as it sounds - other recent London polling has shown enormous Labour leads.
In December 2019, Labour won 48% of the vote, the Conservatives 32% and the LDs 15% - that translated to 49 seats for Labour, 21 for the Conservatives and 3 for the Liberal Democrats and while that was the same as after 2017 that masked quite a bit of churn.
The new poll shows a 10.5% swing from Conservative to Labour (compared with the national 20% swing indicated by Redfield & Wilton for example).
Of the current 20 London Conservative seats, some of the sitting MPs face LD challengers who ran on a strong anti-Brexit ticket in 2019 and I just need convincing that's going to be possible to repeat. Wimbledon, for instance, was a Labour seat in the Blair years and might well be so again if the LD 2019 vote proves to be a chimera.
As for Julia Lopez, a 20% swing in Hornchurch & Upminster would reduce her 23,000 majority to something like 1,500 but she'd survive. Conversely, for all the poll swing, the evidence from the local elections is the LDs won't drop Richmond Park, Twickenham or Kington & Surbiton (you know the old phrase " to lose one leader at a General Election might be considered foolish, to lose two..."). The Conservatives might drop a former leader in Uxbridge & South Ruislip I suppose (if he stands).
Nonetheless, if the London swing is 10% and the national swing is above 15% there must be huge swings elsewhere - last night's local by-elections, by definition a small and wholly unrepresentative sample (up there with Scottish sub samples in truth), were very good for Labour but superficially less so for the LDs.
A rampant Labour Party may well perversely help the Conservatives enabling it to hold seats which might otherwise have gone LD - I can't imagine Starmer would be too bothered if his majority were 200 or 300 but I'd argue a Conservative Party with 150 seats would be in a better shape than one with 100 seats inasmuch as it would have survived an existential threat. The most extreme polling this week has toyed with the Conservatives not just being the third party in the Commons (behind the SNP) but perhaps the fourth (behind the LDs). The latter would be the existential threat, not the former, catastrophic though the former would be).