Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
That's all the more reason to legalise.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
Just on the issue of Moonshine, there is a problem with this in Scandinavian countries, it is hard and expensive to get alcohol, so people brew their own. Not sure how much this goes on but I have seen it. It would probably be the same with drugs. I don't oppose legalising them but it won't stop the black market for stronger and cheaper stuff, so regulating it may not result in an overall improvement in product standards.
The answer is to make most drugs legal, and taxed at a level that stops the black market from dominating.
Or be Singapore and Bangkok, and execute people smuggling drugs.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.
To be fair, they say a trolls work should be reflective of its author.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In the old days, if they've been in front of a magistrate, they'd have been fined a penny!
JRM opposes ban on farmland solar. How is it possible that he's turned into a more reasonable cabinet minister. Truss is a moron.
Yep, it's a bit like folk harking back to the good old days of Priti Patel as HS, now we've got Braverman. FFS, that's some shift in the Overton window.
Well, people wanted Patel and Boris gone - be careful what you wish for!
Are you suggesting PM Francois might not be an improvement?
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
That's all the more reason to legalise.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
Just on the issue of Moonshine, there is a problem with this in Scandinavian countries, it is hard and expensive to get alcohol, so people brew their own. Not sure how much this goes on but I have seen it. It would probably be the same with drugs. I don't oppose legalising them but it won't stop the black market for stronger and cheaper stuff, so regulating it may not result in an overall improvement in product standards.
The answer is to make most drugs legal, and taxed at a level that stops the black market from dominating.
Or be Singapore and Bangkok, and execute people smuggling drugs.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Brexit was about more populist conservatism: more centrist economics and more right wing culturally. Trying to pass off a libertarian Remainer cutting taxes for the rich and opening up the floodgates on immigration as being about Brexit is a con and you know it.
Have we had a thread on why the LibDems don't seem to be benefiting from the trussterfuck?
More interesting that REFUK are not benefitting either.
She is so bad people just want her gone and the clearest way is a Labour win.
When did you last see the leader of either Lib Dems or REFUK interviewed on a major TV channel or or in a major newspaper? And Davey as a former Energy Secretary presumably has something to say.
Davey was first out with the energy price cap. Very well done to them for getting ahead on that, think it is the only thing I can remember from the LDs since the Brexit debates though.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
I note the council cancelled the fine rather than a magistrate finding the vehicle driver not guilty. Because the law is that you should be found guilty every single time - there is no accounting of circumstance or motivation; it's strict liability. I think the high profile cases in the past of x-celeb getting off were likely wrongly decided by the mag because they were facing a big bucks lawyer, not that they were following the law correctly - which as I repeat simply does not allow wiggle room.
That’s not wrong, the ‘war on drugs’ middle way has clearly failed. Be Singapore and Bangkok, or be Netherlands and Portugual. Anything else isn’t going to work.
Hell, the Fentanyl madness in the US right now, is because heroin is illegal and there’s no treatment programme for adicts.
Fundamentally wrong on the history of fentanyl
Okay, enlighten me.
If you could get heroin from the chemist, under supervision, then why would anyone want something as fcuked up as Fentanyl?
Multiple reasons. It’s cheaper. It’s much more addictive. Some say the initial high is more intense - tho the lows and withdrawal are worse and way more dangerous. The dealers cut the heroin with fentanyl - so you get hooked on fentanyl anyway
It’s why I’ve gone off legalisation. The new drugs are too menacing
That's all the more reason to legalise.
Legal and regulated gives certainty on product quality and standards and that what you buy isn't laced with something else.
Legalised beer and wine can be much safer and lower ABV than prohibition era moonshine.
Just on the issue of Moonshine, there is a problem with this in Scandinavian countries, it is hard and expensive to get alcohol, so people brew their own. Not sure how much this goes on but I have seen it. It would probably be the same with drugs. I don't oppose legalising them but it won't stop the black market for stronger and cheaper stuff, so regulating it may not result in an overall improvement in product standards.
The answer is to make most drugs legal, and taxed at a level that stops the black market from dominating.
Or be Singapore and Bangkok, and execute people smuggling drugs.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
A governement introduces a concept of a minimum mortgage interest rate which ratchets up and down with the base rate, say for example making mortgages cost 2% more per year than currently.
The 2% extra interest goes to the treasury The minimum mortgage percentage also acts as a dampener on rising house prices Could even have a different minimum rate for BTL mortgages thats a little higher
Could be in favour for BTL and non primary residences only.
Not much point in lower house prices for owner occupier workers if they then have to pay a surcharge to the government that makes it just as bad or worse than the high house prices were.
If it reduces house price inflation from the current 10% or more a year to say a mere 5% then in the round it would be beneficial for house buyers
The 10% a year is far from sustainable anyway. Market will correct sooner or later.
As discussed on here before the solutions are:
Foreign non resident or ltd company buyers tax - 10% extra LVT to replace council tax Reduce housing benefit substantially Remove govt props that support the market Build more homes
And I would say you have got them in the right order, Mr Above. It is when other steps have been taken that we can see how many new houses need to be built.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.
Be nice to use the big T in a way. Would silence the likes of me who doubt its utility or VFM. Would silence quite a few other people too.
Trident has no utility other than a deterrent. That's it. If our submarine commanders are pulling a live trigger then most people in the UK are either dead or will be in a few minutes.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Good morning Malc
I do hope you and your good lady are well and you have been missed
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Who, exactly, made it "very clear"?
Disgraced National Security Risk David Petreus has weighed in but Biden and Blinken haven't said anything specific on the subject.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation
Nope. If a nuclear attack brings a conventional response, they’re giving Putin one opportunity to stand back, before Moscow is made of radioactive glass.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation
Nope. If a nuclear attack brings a conventional response, they’re giving Putin one opportunity to stand back, before Moscow is made of radioactive glass.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation
Nope. If a nuclear attack brings a conventional response, they’re giving Putin one opportunity to stand back, before Moscow is made of radioactive glass.
And if he doesn't stand back but sees the sinking of his fleet as justifying a nuclear missile being sent to London and Washington?
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation
Nope. If a nuclear attack brings a conventional response, they’re giving Putin one opportunity to stand back, before Moscow is made of radioactive glass.
13 million people live in Moscow.
Yep, does Putin’s personal ambition drive 13m deaths?
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
The simplest thing to do in this case was for the car driver to stay in their lane, or move over as far right as possible, and for the ambulance to use the restricted lane to 'undertake'. Since the ambulance was on blues-and-twos at the time, they would have been within the rules. Road law is incredibly clear: drivers must not break the law in order to let an emergency vehicle past. The emergency services have themselves repeated that many many times.
Nonetheless, a bus lane ticket is a simple fixed penalty non-points and frankly if it's the difference between life and death for the patient on the ambulance, I can cope with losing a few quid. It's in a good cause.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
I note the council cancelled the fine rather than a magistrate finding the vehicle driver not guilty. Because the law is that you should be found guilty every single time - there is no accounting of circumstance or motivation; it's strict liability. I think the high profile cases in the past of x-celeb getting off were likely wrongly decided by the mag because they were facing a big bucks lawyer, not that they were following the law correctly - which as I repeat simply does not allow wiggle room.
Then, the law needs refining.
Things like this, and the absolute misery that are ANPR regulated car-parks which make an absolute mint for their owners by automatically threatening registered owners with £100 fines under the threat of court action (reduced down to £60 if paid within 7 days) for anyone their computer can't cross-verify in their database.
They make it hard to pay at a single parking machine - often out of order, not taking money/cards or lacking in reception for RingGo/apps - and they are allowed to fine you months and months afterwards. They make the letters threatening and very stressful to appeal so they can milk vulnerable confused / motorists.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation
Nope. If a nuclear attack brings a conventional response, they’re giving Putin one opportunity to stand back, before Moscow is made of radioactive glass.
13 million people live in Moscow.
Yep, does Putin’s personal ambition drive 13m deaths?
No, because lots of powerful Russians live in Moscow and they have the collective power to stop Putin. If they can stop their kids being sent off to war they can stop him inciting nuclear war.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
I note the council cancelled the fine rather than a magistrate finding the vehicle driver not guilty. Because the law is that you should be found guilty every single time - there is no accounting of circumstance or motivation; it's strict liability. I think the high profile cases in the past of x-celeb getting off were likely wrongly decided by the mag because they were facing a big bucks lawyer, not that they were following the law correctly - which as I repeat simply does not allow wiggle room.
IANAL, but I don't think that's right, in the sense that the local authority has a legal duty to cancel the penalty charge:
It is in the interests of the authority and the motorist to resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage. Local authorities should always give representations objective and impartial consideration.
A local authority has discretion to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the enforcement process. It can do this if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately.
Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to an application for a judicial review. Local authorities are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest.
I really don't think any court would possibly rule that the circumstances of a case where a motorist moved into the bus lane to let an emergency vehicle through was not caught by the requirement to act fairly and proportionately.
The RAC (which is usually pretty authoritative on motoring law) explicitly mentions this exception, and in fact says the driver would be required to move into the bus lane:
In some circumstances you may be required to cross the solid white line into the bus lane. You should only drive into the lane when you have no other choice but to move over.
These cases could include; to avoid an obstruction in the road, to move out of the path of an emergency vehicle or to avoid an accident.
Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
The country could - and it is only could - be persuaded to accept yet another change of PM provided the party was united around that person AND they were seen to be governing in the national interest.
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
I can’t figure out what is going on in government anymore. Some saying “be prepared for mother of all u-turns” but a tweet just gone out saying Truss not backtracking
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
I think you got that wrong @ydoethur, the less than genial comment you are responding to was from @Nigel_Foremain.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
Small clarification: you can legally pull into a grid box to turn right even if your path is currently blocked by oncoming traffic.
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
We were perfectly free before too. Pleased to see you are proud of how our politics is now, though sadly I can't agree on that one. I notice we are not free of US bases on our sovereign territory though, so when will you be agitating for their removal old chap?
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
I know you've expressed this view before, and it's absolutely, balls out, shit for brains, Kenny Everett mad. Mad is a cheapened word these days, it doesn't express adequately how stupid that would be.
Nah, just because you and a few other loons love Putin and can't bear to see Putin lose, doesn't mean we should go back on our word or allow nuclear escalation to go unpunished.
As long as the war remains conventional then we should only fight via proxy, as we are doing, and has been done for seventy years through the Cold War.
If it escalates to nuclear though, that is what Trident is there for.
Trident is absolutely and demonstrably *not* for attacking another country that has attacked an ally. And I don't think you'll get many thanks from Ukrainians for turning a disaster (a tactical nuke attack) into a piss-fight using strategic nukes, given that they would all die. You utter chump.
Don’t worry, a small tactical nuke won’t be met by an overwhelming nuclear response.
It’ll be met by an overwhelming conventional response. Overwhelming, as in every NATO country throwing everything it has available against the Russian military. There won’t be a Black Sea fleet, and there won’t be dozens of bases from which further attacks might be launched.
That ends in the same place as a nuclear response so you might as well go with Bart Stromberg's Trident launch and save a few a days on the way to the extirpation of modern civilisation in the Northern Hemisphere.
Be nice to use the big T in a way. Would silence the likes of me who doubt its utility or VFM. Would silence quite a few other people too.
Trident has no utility other than a deterrent. That's it. If our submarine commanders are pulling a live trigger then most people in the UK are either dead or will be in a few minutes.
Yes. And imo very little value as that either. Hard to see a realistic scenario where it makes the difference between a free UK and an occupied one. Or where it materially tilts the balance in an international conflict.
Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
The country could - and it is only could - be persuaded to accept yet another change of PM provided the party was united around that person AND they were seen to be governing in the national interest.
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
Legitimacy comes from having the support of parliament. The Tories need someone who has the charisma to separate themselves from the currently trashed Tory brand, who doesn't seem like a regular politician, who can authentically play into red wall conservatism. That is Mordaunt, not Raab. Though Raab could be Foreign Secretary.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 18m The Tory Party cannot function with a system in which the members choose the leader but the MPs don't then accept the result & back that leader to the hilt, at least initially. Truss should be the last leader chosen by members. Hereafter MPs alone should make the choice.
If MPs had chosen then Sunak would be PM and the UK gilts market would not be in then mess it is in and mortgage rates would be heading higher but no way as high as Truss has engineered through her brilliance.
I can’t figure out what is going on in government anymore. Some saying “be prepared for mother of all u-turns” but a tweet just gone out saying Truss not backtracking
Clear as mud
They could ask the Governor of the Bank, who seems to have taken Vicky Pollard as his role model.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Who, exactly, made it "very clear"?
Disgraced National Security Risk David Petreus has weighed in but Biden and Blinken haven't said anything specific on the subject.
I imagine David Patreus, whether disgraced or otherwise, probably has a little more incite than a retired RN rating perhaps?
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Brexit was about more populist conservatism: more centrist economics and more right wing culturally. Trying to pass off a libertarian Remainer cutting taxes for the rich and opening up the floodgates on immigration as being about Brexit is a con and you know it.
Brexit delivered the Conservative Party into the hands of chancers, ideologues, nostalgics and fools. And the Conservative Party, for our sins, governs us. This is the link. It's indirect but real.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
This is not a bluff or a game but deadly serious once you allow the use of nuclear without an overwhelming response
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
Small clarification: you can legally pull into a grid box to turn right even if your path is currently blocked by oncoming traffic.
But only still if the exit is clear.
You can only enter it if your only blockage is oncoming traffic or cars also waiting to turn right.
There's a grid box near me that I regularly turn right through but the road on the right I want to turn into is often fully blocked and stationary, so even if I have a green light I won't/mustn't enter the junction until I can see traffic has moved for my exit.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
If its Essex he chooses , the rest of the UK will be in danger of cheering him on imho
The reason Remoaners STILL get worked up by the idea “Britain was not sovereign in the EU” is because they know it is true, not the opposite
It therefore irks them because it is an inarguable reason for Brexit. They will never be able to turn around and say “Brexit was a mistake” because Brexit is already, in these terms, a success. We are sovereign again. We control our own borders. The fact the borders are pathetically uncontrolled is down to OUR stupid useless government which we can elect or dismiss
Every time I see Ursula von der Wotsit on the telly I give thanks for Brexit. Quite sincerely
Tho she must have been extremely hot in her 20s
Like the lab leak, just because you say it’s inarguable, doesn’t mean it is. Without wishing to be credentialist I’ve studied both EU law and history to Masters level, and am a qualified lawyer, and I firmly believe that the UK was sovereign in the EU. But I accept that I’m not going to change your mind, partly because you wouldn’t understand many of the concepts I’d have to refer to, but more because it’s an emotional thing with you (as so much is) so I can’t be arsed trying. This stuff used to wind me up admittedly, but now I’m sitting back watching the shitshow you sold the country with a similar resigned fatalistic air I view the prospect of nuclear Armageddon.
Just rejoice that we have Brexited. And we are proud and free, once again
Work on your trolling. This schtick is getting old.
Trolling is designed to elicit a pointless response. Which this did. You responded. QED
Once again I have very very very very slightly worsened the life of a pompous, inane, and middlebrow Remoaner, an achievement which gives me more pleasure than it ought
“I’ll have you know I am a qualified lawyer”
Lol
Bizarre your fixation with Remainers being "middlebrow". I'm certainly not. Eg I really like Hotel California by The Eagles.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 18m The Tory Party cannot function with a system in which the members choose the leader but the MPs don't then accept the result & back that leader to the hilt, at least initially. Truss should be the last leader chosen by members. Hereafter MPs alone should make the choice.
If MPs had chosen then Sunak would be PM and the UK gilts market would not be in then mess it is in and mortgage rates would be heading higher but no way as high as Truss has engineered through her brilliance.
Mortgage rates and gilt rates were going up before the Kamikwase mini budget and they would have continued to rise without it. We are chasing the Fed with a weak currency driven by very heavy borrowing, unquantifiable liabilites in respect of fuel subsidies and an 8% trade deficit. None of that is Truss's or Kwarteng's fault even if their response was tin earned and unhelpful.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Who, exactly, made it "very clear"?
Disgraced National Security Risk David Petreus has weighed in but Biden and Blinken haven't said anything specific on the subject.
I imagine David Patreus, whether disgraced or otherwise, probably has a little more incite than a retired RN rating perhaps?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
Thanks for putting on the self-portrait. This is exactly how I imagined you. Your poor wife, what she puts up with.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
Small clarification: you can legally pull into a grid box to turn right even if your path is currently blocked by oncoming traffic.
It's all a bit hit and miss, particularly as regards cameras and the extent to which the rules are imposed. The biggest practical problem I find is that you have to read the mind of the driver(s) in front of you. If the proceed normally you should be ok but if one pulls up well short of the car ahead of it you may be forced to stop in the grid box, and the law offers you no way out.
You could argue that you should wait until the way is clear, but if we all did that traffic would grind to a halt instantly.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Welcome back Malcolm. First time I have been on the end of your ire. Although I think you should read the thread completely. This wasn't about Scotland but the EU and comparing the two positions. I'm not suggesting Scotland doesn't have the right to vote to leave. I believe it does and strongly believe it should be allowed to do so if it so votes. I thought you knew that was my position from previous discussions.
I'm simply pointing out the legal position. Whether you like it or not Scotland can not leave the UK without processes dependent upon others (or declaring UDI). The UK was free to leave the EU. The EU could do nothing to stop it.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
I note the council cancelled the fine rather than a magistrate finding the vehicle driver not guilty. Because the law is that you should be found guilty every single time - there is no accounting of circumstance or motivation; it's strict liability. I think the high profile cases in the past of x-celeb getting off were likely wrongly decided by the mag because they were facing a big bucks lawyer, not that they were following the law correctly - which as I repeat simply does not allow wiggle room.
Then, the law needs refining.
Things like this, and the absolute misery that are ANPR regulated car-parks which make an absolute mint for their owners by automatically threatening registered owners with £100 fines under the threat of court action (reduced down to £60 if paid within 7 days) for anyone their computer can't cross-verify in their database.
They make it hard to pay at a single parking machine - often out of order, not taking money/cards or lacking in reception for RingGo/apps - and they are allowed to fine you months and months afterwards. They make the letters threatening and very stressful to appeal so they can milk vulnerable confused / motorists.
Yeah this is another thing that is rotten about Britain. Add it to the list that includes 'academies' trying to reduce the pay of 15k per annum full time teaching assistants in London.
Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
The country could - and it is only could - be persuaded to accept yet another change of PM provided the party was united around that person AND they were seen to be governing in the national interest.
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
Legitimacy comes from having the support of parliament. The Tories need someone who has the charisma to separate themselves from the currently trashed Tory brand, who doesn't seem like a regular politician, who can authentically play into red wall conservatism. That is Mordaunt, not Raab. Though Raab could be Foreign Secretary.
I think we have exhausted the concept of legitimacy coming from having the support of parliament. A 3rd PM in the same parliament with a 3rd separate programme for government cannot claim political legitimacy - or at least won't be granted it by the electorate.
During the final days of the Brown government, what really did it for any ideas of a rainbow coalition was that senior Labour MPs said no. A paper constitutional legitimacy that "if we have a majority we are legit" doesn't wash - they were rejected and the likes of Jack Straw were adamant that they must leave the stage.
Tories are now 30 points behind in the polls. Whatever authority they had has gone. A return to status-quo-ante - led by Raab rather than Johnson who still faces sanction for lying to parliament remember - may be ok. But if Truss has to go because nobody voted for her, how does Mordaunt have any political legitimacy?
Sky saying discussions are underway way to reverse the corporation tax and implement a dividend tax
If this happens Kwarteng has to resign
Truss will be next if matters do not improve
I still can’t see how Truss gets through
The only thing that may reprieve her is her mps who cannot agree her successor
The conservative party is in a complete mess and so divided they will be in opposition in 2 years no matter what they do, but hopefully they will at least provide an opposition to labour
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
I can’t figure out what is going on in government anymore. Some saying “be prepared for mother of all u-turns” but a tweet just gone out saying Truss not backtracking
Clear as mud
They could ask the Governor of the Bank, who seems to have taken Vicky Pollard as his role model.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 18m The Tory Party cannot function with a system in which the members choose the leader but the MPs don't then accept the result & back that leader to the hilt, at least initially. Truss should be the last leader chosen by members. Hereafter MPs alone should make the choice.
If MPs had chosen then Sunak would be PM and the UK gilts market would not be in then mess it is in and mortgage rates would be heading higher but no way as high as Truss has engineered through her brilliance.
Mortgage rates and gilt rates were going up before the Kamikwase mini budget and they would have continued to rise without it. We are chasing the Fed with a weak currency driven by very heavy borrowing, unquantifiable liabilites in respect of fuel subsidies and an 8% trade deficit. None of that is Truss's or Kwarteng's fault even if their response was tin earned and unhelpful.
As I said, higher but not this high.
And politically, the Tory party would not be being blamed for the mortgage crunch for millions that is coming. Now they have this totally around their necks and that is why they will lose in 2024.
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
They don't care, they want the money.
I was once driving through a camera controlled restricted speed zone due to roadworks and an emergency services vehicle was behind flashing its light. I stuck to the speed limit. Too many cases like this. They don't care if you are doing the right thing they just want the money.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
This is not a bluff or a game but deadly serious once you allow the use of nuclear without an overwhelming response
And if he sees the sinking of his fleet as a declaration of war by NATO on Russia what is to stop him then sending further nuclear missiles on London, Paris and Washington DC, LA and New York in response?
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
I can’t figure out what is going on in government anymore. Some saying “be prepared for mother of all u-turns” but a tweet just gone out saying Truss not backtracking
Clear as mud
The mother of all u-turns is the MPs removing Truss.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
NATO have said nothing of the sort. The phrase 'Serious Consequences' was as far as Stoltenberg would go.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Conservative MPs are talking seriously about whether Liz Truss should be ousted as their leader, barely more than a month after she took office.
Her performance last night at a meeting with the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers was seen, by common consensus, as disastrous.
One backbench MP told The Times this morning that the mood was “deadly” for the prime minister. Truss is under pressure to change course with her economic plans. Senior advisers have warned the prime minister that it is “no longer credible” to press ahead with big tax cuts without risking a financial crisis.
The MP noted that under the leadership rules at present Truss is immune from a challenge for her first year. However, they added: “If the ’22 changed the rules, we’d hit the threshold for a confidence vote in a couple of hours.”
The backbencher did not support Truss for the leadership, but just a week ago said that they believed their colleagues were overreacting to the mini-budget and that she should be given time to turn her leadership around.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
This is not a bluff or a game but deadly serious once you allow the use of nuclear without an overwhelming response
And if he sees the sinking of his fleet as a declaration of war by NATO on Russia what is to stop him then sending further nuclear missiles on London, Paris and Washington DC, LA and New York in response?
The fact that it would end in the complete destruction of Russia, much greater than that of the West, as we have well maintained nuclear arsenals and the US has effective missile defence systems. Oh, and the fact that he would be taken out by the KGB and Oligarchs who don't want to all die.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
I wonder whether that is in real terms? If not, it implies an even bigger fall in real terms.
And I agree with David - good. Houses need to be much more affordable than they are. (Clearly there are problems with this too and there are winners and losers, but I'd say we passed the point where losers from high house prices outnumber winners decades ago).
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
There is a difference between Putin attacking the UK and the current conflict due to a border dispute in the East of Ukraine.
I can’t figure out what is going on in government anymore. Some saying “be prepared for mother of all u-turns” but a tweet just gone out saying Truss not backtracking
Clear as mud
They could ask the Governor of the Bank, who seems to have taken Vicky Pollard as his role model.
Some are saying let's risk London being nuked and Britain being destroyed, their aim being to save Donetsk from the Donetskians.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
The simplest thing to do in this case was for the car driver to stay in their lane, or move over as far right as possible, and for the ambulance to use the restricted lane to 'undertake'. Since the ambulance was on blues-and-twos at the time, they would have been within the rules. Road law is incredibly clear: drivers must not break the law in order to let an emergency vehicle past. The emergency services have themselves repeated that many many times.
Nonetheless, a bus lane ticket is a simple fixed penalty non-points and frankly if it's the difference between life and death for the patient on the ambulance, I can cope with losing a few quid. It's in a good cause.
Quite frankly, if the law is as you state it, it is BAD law. There should always be exceptions. What if a small child was lying in the way?
Someone took a situation like this to the high court a few years ago, when they pulled in front of a red light to let an police car (on flashing lights) pass and got a ticket. They lost. The law is the law but the problem is a lack of judgement on the part of the authorities that serve the notices (as you imply).
In London, if all drivers refused point blank ever to move into bus lanes you would have instant gridlock. Buses coming the other way would not be able to get through unless drivers used their common sense and shifted over, briefly utilising the bus lane. I've often thought that a day of 'working to rule' by all drivers would helpfully show how much the traffic flow relies on common sense.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
I absolutely work to rule with box junctions after getting two fines in one week for minor infractions a few years back. There was one junction near us where they clearly had to reduce its size because over zealous enforcement had stopped the traffic moving completely.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
I wonder whether that is in real terms? If not, it implies an even bigger fall in real terms.
And I agree with David - good. Houses need to be much more affordable than they are. (Clearly there are problems with this too and there are winners and losers, but I'd say we passed the point where losers from high house prices outnumber winners decades ago).
I was assuming real terms but that should mean prices remain broadly static in nominal terms which would be fine and avoid negative equity. And I agree wholeheartedly with your winners and losers point.
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
This is not a bluff or a game but deadly serious once you allow the use of nuclear without an overwhelming response
And if he sees the sinking of his fleet as a declaration of war by NATO on Russia what is to stop him then sending further nuclear missiles on London, Paris and Washington DC, LA and New York in response?
The fact that it would end in the complete destruction of Russia, much greater than that of the West, as we have well maintained nuclear arsenals and the US has effective missile defence systems. Oh, and the fact that he would be taken out by the KGB and Oligarchs who don't want to all die.
Most poker hands dont get down to the stage where the cards are shown - some however do and then its down to luck - i dont want nuclear war coming down to luck over bluffing and counter bluffing by macho leaders ,it needs to deescalate - there is no way in this world we shoudl be this close to nuclear war due to what is effectively a slavic border dispute- FGS they were part of the same country only 30 years ago
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
Mordaunt as PM, Sunak as Chancellor is the best possible option the Tories have right now. Restore the tax rate for higher earners, redesign the energy subsidy, stop Sunak's NI raise and raise the money on second homes, curb low skill immigration.
The country could - and it is only could - be persuaded to accept yet another change of PM provided the party was united around that person AND they were seen to be governing in the national interest.
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
Legitimacy comes from having the support of parliament. The Tories need someone who has the charisma to separate themselves from the currently trashed Tory brand, who doesn't seem like a regular politician, who can authentically play into red wall conservatism. That is Mordaunt, not Raab. Though Raab could be Foreign Secretary.
I think we have exhausted the concept of legitimacy coming from having the support of parliament. A 3rd PM in the same parliament with a 3rd separate programme for government cannot claim political legitimacy - or at least won't be granted it by the electorate.
During the final days of the Brown government, what really did it for any ideas of a rainbow coalition was that senior Labour MPs said no. A paper constitutional legitimacy that "if we have a majority we are legit" doesn't wash - they were rejected and the likes of Jack Straw were adamant that they must leave the stage.
Tories are now 30 points behind in the polls. Whatever authority they had has gone. A return to status-quo-ante - led by Raab rather than Johnson who still faces sanction for lying to parliament remember - may be ok. But if Truss has to go because nobody voted for her, how does Mordaunt have any political legitimacy?
Truss has to go because she is manifestly incapable of doing the job to a required minimum standard, and as a result the economy of the country has lurched into a position of heightened peril.
If MPs can unite around an alternative, and that alternative can reach a minimum standard of capability that avoids imminent economic Armageddon, then that will quieten things down for a bit.
I have my doubts that MPs can unite around an alternative, but we will see.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
Oh Dear , cockroach has his panties in a bunch already! Watch that blood pressure
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
And as big an ignorant prejudiced twat as ever.
You're a bit harsh on yourself there Malc. You know lots about, for example, horse racing.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
I assume you have been driven mad by the gammons like foreskin
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Did you read my post
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
NATO have said nothing of the sort. The phrase 'Serious Consequences' was as far as Stoltenberg would go.
Oxford Economics @OxfordEconomics We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
They have plenty to complain about. Student debt, public debt, unaffordable pensions handed out willy nilly that they will have to fund but not receive, casual labour and zero hour contracts, worsening public services, I could go on all day.
Gotta admit I don’t want my kids to die for Kharkiv. Bit shit for Kharkiv but then the division of Korea was pretty crap for lots of Koreans. We avoided nuclear war, however
You are allowed to say that. You don't want your children to die over Kharkiv. Bart, meanwhile, wants his wife and daughter to die if the Russians use a battlefield nuke in Ukraine.
Have just noticed. The video of Truss meeting the King. Lots of comments about her appalling courtesy thing. And his "you're back again? Dear oh dear". But listen between "again" and "dear". He grimaces and sucks his teeth loudly. Its comedy gold!
I am no fan of Truss but, quite frankly, I find it rude of the entitled, privileged, white male Monarch to react in that way.
There is no need for it.
People approving of such ignorant behaviour because its towards someone they politically do not like would not be so accomodating if it was someone like Starmer or Davey.
Utter rubbish, Truss is the most hapless and unpopular PM in 100 years. It was a mild remark reflecting on the complete calamity of the current government before the King swiftly moved the conversation on.
I have no problem with it at all and given she was open in her republicanism in the past who could blame Charles in enjoying secretly the calamity of her first month in office!
I’m a monarchist but I don’t like this. Ask yourself: why did this stuff never happen to the Queen?
Because she had impeccable manners and knew how to behave as a monarch
Even if there was no malign intent in KC3’s mutterings (and how can anyone be sure?) they can certainly be interpreted as dissing the elected Prime Minister. And that is really bad - for the Monarchy
A few years of it could turn me into a republican. It’s the one single thing they must not do. KC3 needs to kick out the cameras if he can’t control his words
'elected'?
She’s an MP. That’s our electoral system. If we don’t like it we can change it. Now we have Brexited we are a free and sovereign democracy once again
As we were before we Brexited.
Sovereign, in the sense of either accept everything or leave, yes.
The People made their decision.
Yep they did, which rather proves the point. We were/are sovereign.
Perverse logic.
If Scotland had Yes in 2014 would that have rather proven the point that they were sovereign pre-2014?
Not the same thing at all.
If Scotland voted Yes they are still dependent upon the UK to leave. They couldn't just leave, but would have been allowed to leave.
When we voted to leave the EU the EU could not stop us leaving.
So the circumstances are very different and the logic is not perverse.
We were Sovereign before we left, Scotland wasn't. Hence we could just leave and Scotland couldn't.
Utter bollox from an obviously halfwitted moron. In Scotland teh people are sovereign , not some half witted German reject or a bunch of poseurs in Westminster.
Nice to see you back Malcolm, and in fine form too.
Yeah, nice to see you back @malcolmg, hope you and your good lady are well and you are having a good success rate on the gee gee's.
You're definitely on fine form too
Taz, thanks and also thanks to all other well wishers. Been in the doldrums a bit on the horses but jumping season starting which is my favourite. I got the Arc winner but that did not need any skill. Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
In the Budget 2021, the government announced future changes to the corporation tax rate. From April 2023, if your taxable profits are above £250,000 then you'll be subject to an upper limit of 25%. If your profits are £50,000 or less then you'll be subject to a lower limit rate of 19%
They could revert then continually & shamelessly reannounce this bit of Sunak's plan.
19% for your hairdresser, the pub, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker....
Apparently Macron had to say this because French public opinion is freaking out about nuclear war
But he could surely have found a better way of phrasing it than this. Calamitously awkward
The quote seems selective because it doesn't mention nuclear. If he's talking about nuclear, of course France wouldn't nuke Russia for using a nuke in Ukraine - not would we, nor would America.
We absolutely should, 100%. We made guarantees to Ukraine when they disarmed their own nukes, and we should honour our word by holding them under our nuclear shield if it gets that far.
And Putin should be in no doubt about that, so if he chooses to nuke Ukraine he knows we will take it as seriously as him choosing to nuke London.
Ukraine is not even in NATO. So if Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine, you would nuke Moscow, then Putin nukes London. Just to be clear?
Trident is a last resort for our defence or at most NATO's defence that is it. Otherwise blockade and isolate Putin further but don't launch Trident
It has been made very clear to the Russian high command that the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would be met by a devastating conventional response from NATO.
Including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet
Which risks Putin seeing that as a NATO declaration of war on Russia, leading to a further escalation.
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
The good thing is NATO commanders are not answerable to you, and maybe you should read a bit more about the agreed overwhelming conventional response by NATO that has been communicated to the Kremlin including the sinking of the Black Sea fleet in the event of a nuclear weapon being used
Which we hope is a deterrent.
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation nd our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Some risks are appropriate to take.
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
No, of course not. Essex is in the UK and then we would have to launch a Trident nuclear weapon on Moscow in response.
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
Its not absurd, we made certain guarantees when they disarmed their nukes so its under our nuclear shield as far as a red line on nukes is concerned.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
We should never have disarmed Ukraine's nukes but we did and we cannot go back now.
Off topic and apologies to the anti-wokerati but great quote from Ben Shalom on the upcoming Shields-Marshall fight and card; it's not women's boxing, it's boxing.
Comments
Or be Singapore and Bangkok, and execute people smuggling drugs.
I think the high profile cases in the past of x-celeb getting off were likely wrongly decided by the mag because they were facing a big bucks lawyer, not that they were following the law correctly - which as I repeat simply does not allow wiggle room.
There is a similar issue with the yellow grid boxes at junctions. Strictly you shouldn't pull into one unless the exit is completely clear but if everyone applied that to the letter, gridlock would once again result.
I do hope you and your good lady are well and you have been missed
Ukraine is not in NATO the most we should do is further sanction Russia and supply Ukraine
Disgraced National Security Risk David Petreus has weighed in but Biden and Blinken haven't said anything specific on the subject.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1580322422821380097?t=dmfLSaI9G3pzOAWoT2p4dw&s=19
Nonetheless, a bus lane ticket is a simple fixed penalty non-points and frankly if it's the difference between life and death for the patient on the ambulance, I can cope with losing a few quid. It's in a good cause.
Things like this, and the absolute misery that are ANPR regulated car-parks which make an absolute mint for their owners by automatically threatening registered owners with £100 fines under the threat of court action (reduced down to £60 if paid within 7 days) for anyone their computer can't cross-verify in their database.
They make it hard to pay at a single parking machine - often out of order, not taking money/cards or lacking in reception for RingGo/apps - and they are allowed to fine you months and months afterwards. They make the letters threatening and very stressful to appeal so they can milk vulnerable confused / motorists.
Edit - was that a blockquote SNAFU or is my illness just making me feel confused?
It is in the interests of the authority and the motorist to resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage. Local authorities should always give representations objective and impartial consideration.
A local authority has discretion to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the enforcement process. It can do this if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately.
Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to an application for a judicial review. Local authorities are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-enforcement-outside-london/traffic-management-act-2004-statutory-guidance-for-local-authorities-outside-london-on-civil-enforcement-of-bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-contravention#challenges-representations-and-appeals
I really don't think any court would possibly rule that the circumstances of a case where a motorist moved into the bus lane to let an emergency vehicle through was not caught by the requirement to act fairly and proportionately.
The RAC (which is usually pretty authoritative on motoring law) explicitly mentions this exception, and in fact says the driver would be required to move into the bus lane:
In some circumstances you may be required to cross the solid white line into the bus lane. You should only drive into the lane when you have no other choice but to move over.
These cases could include; to avoid an obstruction in the road, to move out of the path of an emergency vehicle or to avoid an accident.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/driving-advice/bus-lanes/
Entertaining as it is, the Tory mandate in 2019 has been largely ignored, but that is what these MPs ran on. So any leader would need to be focused on that or at least paying lipservice to it.
Can I throw another name into the ring - Dominic Raab. Stop laughing and listen for a minute. Raab has democratic legitimacy. He was First Secretary of State both before and after the 2019 election. That role was upgraded to Deputy Prime Minister. So if we need a caretaker PM it can't be some lightweight who had no senior role in the government which won the election.
Truss is heading for a Tory ELE. But they are not out of danger if they oust her and replace her with another nobody with their own grand plans and ambitions which nobody voted for. Party politics is fine when it has a mandate. Truss does not. Mordaunt doing Pennyism would not. So if they get this wrong, the ELE could still be on...
However if Putin does launch a nuclear weapon in Ukraine that threat will have been proved not to be a deterrent. The risk is going through with it then risks further escalation and our going to war with an insane Russian President already having showed himself ready to use nuclear missiles
Clear as mud
If Putin chose to nuke Essex as a "warning" to the West to back off do you think the rest of the UK should say "OK, Essex has been nuked but we don't want to be nuked ourselves so we'd better not risk escalating this any further" or do you think we should retaliate?
@andrew_lilico
·
18m
The Tory Party cannot function with a system in which the members choose the leader but the MPs don't then accept the result & back that leader to the hilt, at least initially. Truss should be the last leader chosen by members. Hereafter MPs alone should make the choice.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico
===
If MPs had chosen then Sunak would be PM and the UK gilts market would not be in then mess it is in and mortgage rates would be heading higher but no way as high as Truss has engineered through her brilliance.
Putin has been told by NATO of the consequences of using a nuclear weapon with an overwhelming NATO response with conventional weapons sinking his Black Sea fleet
This is not a bluff or a game but deadly serious once you allow the use of nuclear without an overwhelming response
You can only enter it if your only blockage is oncoming traffic or cars also waiting to turn right.
There's a grid box near me that I regularly turn right through but the road on the right I want to turn into is often fully blocked and stationary, so even if I have a green light I won't/mustn't enter the junction until I can see traffic has moved for my exit.
Watch that blood pressure
If this happens Kwarteng has to resign
Truss will be next if matters do not improve
@OxfordEconomics
We estimate the recent surge in swap rates means that UK house prices are 37% overvalued based on mortgage affordability. Though other metrics suggest prices are less stretched, we forecast prices will drop by 10%-15% over the next two years
https://twitter.com/OxfordEconomics/status/1580515693497569280
You could argue that you should wait until the way is clear, but if we all did that traffic would grind to a halt instantly.
I'm simply pointing out the legal position. Whether you like it or not Scotland can not leave the UK without processes dependent upon others (or declaring UDI). The UK was free to leave the EU. The EU could do nothing to stop it.
During the final days of the Brown government, what really did it for any ideas of a rainbow coalition was that senior Labour MPs said no. A paper constitutional legitimacy that "if we have a majority we are legit" doesn't wash - they were rejected and the likes of Jack Straw were adamant that they must leave the stage.
Tories are now 30 points behind in the polls. Whatever authority they had has gone. A return to status-quo-ante - led by Raab rather than Johnson who still faces sanction for lying to parliament remember - may be ok. But if Truss has to go because nobody voted for her, how does Mordaunt have any political legitimacy?
The conservative party is in a complete mess and so divided they will be in opposition in 2 years no matter what they do, but hopefully they will at least provide an opposition to labour
However Ukraine is not in the UK nor even in NATO so the comparison is absurd
And politically, the Tory party would not be being blamed for the mortgage crunch for millions that is coming. Now they have this totally around their necks and that is why they will lose in 2024.
I was once driving through a camera controlled restricted speed zone due to roadworks and an emergency services vehicle was behind flashing its light. I stuck to the speed limit. Too many cases like this. They don't care if you are doing the right thing they just want the money.
You're definitely on fine form too
Bloomberg also confirming the story as the pound edges up (now 1.13)
Conservative MPs are talking seriously about whether Liz Truss should be ousted as their leader, barely more than a month after she took office.
Her performance last night at a meeting with the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers was seen, by common consensus, as disastrous.
One backbench MP told The Times this morning that the mood was “deadly” for the prime minister. Truss is under pressure to change course with her economic plans. Senior advisers have warned the prime minister that it is “no longer credible” to press ahead with big tax cuts without risking a financial crisis.
The MP noted that under the leadership rules at present Truss is immune from a challenge for her first year. However, they added: “If the ’22 changed the rules, we’d hit the threshold for a confidence vote in a couple of hours.”
The backbencher did not support Truss for the leadership, but just a week ago said that they believed their colleagues were overreacting to the mini-budget and that she should be given time to turn her leadership around.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-corporation-tax-budget-follow-live-sn7c9b588
And I agree with David - good. Houses need to be much more affordable than they are. (Clearly there are problems with this too and there are winners and losers, but I'd say we passed the point where losers from high house prices outnumber winners decades ago).
But not a great choice either way.
Oh and something something, wicked bad Mr Putin.
One has to ask why would those who in other contexts appear reasonably sane say such a thing. I am not being rhetorical. I really mean that people should ask this question: why do they say it? Is it because they've reasoned it all out and decided that what they're saying is the rational conclusion to draw given the circumstances?
Were they so vocal when there was actual real genocide in Rwanda, and practically no risk of London being nuked or Britain being destroyed had Britain intervened?
The trigger for me deciding WW3 is imminent will be any NATO country flying warplanes over any of the six territories.
Depending on how things play out, I may bring things forward by changing the criterion to flying warplanes over any part of pre-September 2022 Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/kitty_donaldson/status/1580525584907587584
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1580524358685970433
There was one junction near us where they clearly had to reduce its size because over zealous enforcement had stopped the traffic moving completely.
A nuke on Ukraine absolutely should be considered the same as a nuke on Berlin, we made that guarantee and got them to disarm their nukes on that proviso.
If MPs can unite around an alternative, and that alternative can reach a minimum standard of capability that avoids imminent economic Armageddon, then that will quieten things down for a bit.
I have my doubts that MPs can unite around an alternative, but we will see.
This is how you decide to "relaunch" yourself?
Both are legitimate points of view.
Off for my covid and flu jags later today.
They could revert then continually & shamelessly reannounce this bit of Sunak's plan.
19% for your hairdresser, the pub, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker....