Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Scottish *National* Party is not republican, as we amply saw last month, so what's the problem?
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
NEW: what a tangled web they weave… Sources say Javid was in running for Home Sec after massive row between Suella and PM last night about relaxing visas - but forced out one of her closest advisers this morning so now likely to be Shapps https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1582756925132791810
Speaking of the Ship of Theseus, Jacob Rees-Mogg has just suggested local referendums on fracking. The govt is now spending huge amounts of political capital to defend a pro-fracking policy under which no fracking will ever happen. https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1582756953608294400
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, OKC, but they would be second largest Party in Westminster, ...so they automatically become the official Opposition.
No?
Not disputing the numbers, Mr P, but how can a party which wants to leave His Majesty's realm be considered a Loyal Opposition?
So was Suella (a) sacked by Truss (b) sacked by Hunt (c) flounced because her "Yoghurt-Knitting Tofu-Eating Wokerati" comments were see as piss funny for a student but not something that one of the great officers of state would say
Robert Peston @Peston · 1m Massive Downing St pile on against @sajidjavid . “If Saj hadn’t humiliated the PM” - by forcing her to suspend adviser Stein - “he’d probably be home secretary now, not Shapps”. Wow. Rome is burning
Tactiacal voting would certainly reduce the number of Tory MPs, probably down to single figures.
The LDs might just become the official Opposition, but more likely it would be the SNP. Ian Blackwood must be having wet dreams at the possibility, and it certainly is possible.
How can the Scottish Nationalists be His Majesty's Loyal Opposition?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, OKC, but they would be second largest Party in Westminster, ...so they automatically become the official Opposition.
No?
Not disputing the numbers, Mr P, but how can a party which wants to leave His Majesty's realm be considered a Loyal Opposition?
Not leave it, but remove part of it. As I said, the SNP is not a republican party. Think Commonwealth.
So was Suella (a) sacked by Truss (b) sacked by Hunt (c) flounced because her "Yoghurt-Knitting Tofu-Eating Wokerati" comments were see as piss funny for a student but not something that one of the great officers of state would say
(a) Truss probably. Truss wants more immigrants to replace British idlers, whereas Suella wants to send everyone to Rwanda.
NEW: what a tangled web they weave… Sources say Javid was in running for Home Sec after massive row between Suella and PM last night about relaxing visas - but forced out one of her closest advisers this morning so now likely to be Shapps https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1582756925132791810
Utterly insane, if true.
Presumably this is related to the Indian Free Trade Agreement. And presumably Braverman said "I can't support the visa element of the deal". And Truss said "I need this fucking deal for fucks sake. You're fucking fired."
OK. You know how I said that Truss was going to keep her head down, hope for a resolution in Ukraine, and would see her ratings (and Tory polling) recover somewhat.
I was wrong.
Sacking Braverman (an I am no Suella fan) weeks into the job is madness, and pretty much guarantees an imminent challenge.
OK. You know how I said that Truss was going to keep her head down, hope for a resolution in Ukraine, and would see her ratings (and Tory polling) recover somewhat.
I was wrong.
Sacking Braverman (an I am no Suella fan) weeks into the job is madness, and pretty much guarantees an imminent challenge.
My feelings exactly.
Until today, Truss survived until next year.
Now, I'm not sure she survives as leader until November.....
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
"An honest mistake involving a work e-mail on a private phone". That will be seen as a stitch-up by Braverman backers (probably correctly). I think Hunt's play is to split the right-wing vote in the MPs phase of any leadership contest.
Quick check of Wiki suggests she is not the shortest serving Home Secretary - technically beaten by the 1st Duke of Wellington who managed exactly 1 month?
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
Farage already calling it a Hunt led Remainer Globalist coup
So was Suella (a) sacked by Truss (b) sacked by Hunt (c) flounced because her "Yoghurt-Knitting Tofu-Eating Wokerati" comments were see as piss funny for a student but not something that one of the great officers of state would say
(a) Truss probably. Truss wants more immigrants to replace British idlers, whereas Suella wants to send everyone to Rwanda.
I have a solution 1. Send everyone to Rwanda. Suella can flip the bird at them for the Daily Mail cameraman. 2. In Rwanda transfer their documents to the points based migration people. Stamp them in 3. Fly the plane back to a different UK airport to welcome them to Britain
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
Farage already calling it a Hunt led Remainer Globalist coup
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
Well, I've been a political animal for just about 50 years now. Regardless of political allegiance, I can't ever recall such mayhem as we have now at the heart of government. It's an unbelievable mess, it really is. The government, and the Tory Party, are disintegrating.
I was convinced we wouldn't have a GE until 2024. I'm not so sure now.
If it's true that she's getting rid of all the c*nts in her Cabinet in the hope of not repulsing the public the good news is she's only got 20 more to go.
The Conservative party is very publically and very fatally disintegrating. They need to put in place a team under Hunt, Mordaunt or Sunak by the weekend
Farage already calling it a Hunt led Remainer Globalist coup
But it's not a hypothecated tax now, it's just a tax like any other. You're proposing to increase taxes on the working poor so you can keep your inheritance. Do you not see how immoral that is, as a church going person I think your reverend would have words with you. Impoverishing those without so you can enrich yourself with your parents wealth one day is morally wrong.
Well it should be a hypothecation insurance/tax as it was set up to be.
It was not the working poor who Sunak raised National insurance on to fund social care but higher earners, indeed the very poor don't pay National insurance at all.
Proper Tories, including High Tory Anglicans would support preservation of inherited wealth. Don't you try lecturing me on what is morally wrong just because proper Tory values are not you libertarian agenda, tough!!!!
It has nothing to do with libertarians or Tories. It is a straight moral issue. You want people poorer than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth. That is a clear moral issue regardless of politics and I think Max is right in what your vicar might think
It has everything to do with libertarians or Tories.
Both you and Max are classical liberals, more in common with each other than traditional Tories.
Scrapping the £86k cap hits average homeowners or less with £200k to £400k homes especially hard as most of their estate goes in care costs.
The biggest rise in NI by Sunak by far was for those earning over £100k, lower earners even saw a slight NI cut.
So don't give me this crap about NI hitting the poor most while the social care cap only protects the rich!!!
That is the 2nd time now you have accused me of saying 'poor' when I actually said 'poorer' The words have very different meanings. Try reading what I say.
You want people POORER (not the poor) than your parents to fund their care through their taxes so you can inherit their wealth.
No I don't, the biggest increase in NI was for those earning over £100k who are certainly not poorer than my parents, anyone earning average income of £35k or less had no NI rise.
You by contrast want average home owners with properties of £200k to £400k to lose most of their property value in care costs by scrapping the £86k care cap
You are dissembling by picking on the recent changes.
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
No I don't. As I said Sunak did NOT increase NI on anyone earning under £35k a year, only on higher earners, especially earning over £100k.
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If they are going into care what use do they have of it?
Who really gives a flying fuck about fracking right now? We are inches from Apocalypse
“If Russia faces destruction of their army and utter defeat by NATO, they will use nukes, then NATO will respond with nukes and civilization is over”
“But, hey, look on the bright side! At least Russia doesn’t get Crimea in that scenario, so you can be comforted by that thought, while watching the mushroom clouds rise.”
Noa Hoffman @hoffman_noa · 7m Understand Suella was due to make a major announcement about slashing student visa numbers tomorrow
For a while I have satirised the parochial bigotry of a section of the Tory/Brexit right who simply do not like the forrin. "Its too simplistic" etc. And yet here we are.
Many of our universities are only financially viable with the mega £ that comes from students from China and similar. Yet Suella wanted to stop them coming here...
It could be that there is something coming that the government really really doesn't want to get out. Or a stitch up.
I'm not sure which to believe any more.
I wonder if this is related to the reason that Truss couldn't attend the Commons yesterday? Mordaunt kept claiming there was a genuine reason, but nobody seemed to believe that. Wonder if this security-related sacking is related or pure coincidence?
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
And tears up the test ban treaty. And probably puts the NPT up for grabs.
Quick check of Wiki suggests she is not the shortest serving Home Secretary - technically beaten by the 1st Duke of Wellington who managed exactly 1 month?
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
People will flee cities etc
Cities would not be targets of course, he would need to take out infrastructure, industry and military. City damage, London, NYC and Washington etc aside will be due to proximity to countermeasure targets. Not enough nukes and too much dsstruction from phase one to move on to countervalue strikes
Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582761620128034816
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 3m Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.
“It now seems likely Putin will detonate some sort of nuclear device in or around Ukraine. That will precipitate the biggest global crisis since Cuba. This morning ministers and Tory MPs are saying the only person they can find to lead us through that crisis is Liz Truss.”
I love how everyone treats Hodges saying Brady has zillions of letters in as gospel but they'll poo poo this.
Reading between the lines “Russia drops a tactical nuke” now seems as likely as not
There is no other way Putin can win. If his army is not capable of a second invasion from Belarus, he is out of options
It is also not a way he can win.
It's not impossible that he is mad enough to resort to a nuclear weapon, but it's certainly not 'as likely as not'.
This from @ozymandias seems the best explanation for recent events
“None. It's an opinion same as any other opinion about "what may happen" on this site. It does seem odd Wallace jetting off (and there are plenty of other ways of avoiding a commons vote), something obviously happened when Truss did her disappearing act (alternative being she was strapped down and given a heavy dose of Ketamine).
Putin wouldn't go straight in with a full nuclear attack as that loses him his leverage. Nukes are tools of leverage. So the obvious path would be a detonation under the guise of an "exercise" to prove he's not mucking about. Informing the US would be a necessary step to avoid any misunderstanding.”
It’s not nice. But that adds up
I've been saying for a couple of weeks now that Putin escalates this by conducting some kind of nuclear test on his own soil. In one fell swoop, the markets will nosedive, precipitating a financial crisis in the west. Not to mention the total hysteria it will cause - a run on loo roll, baked beans, etc. He can and will inflict significant economic damage on the west in a way we can't do anything about.
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
Yes. That’s my thinking
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
Comments
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1582756925132791810
https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1582756953608294400
the end of the worldthe end of Trusshell hath no fury like a woman quorned
etcetctetc
(a) sacked by Truss
(b) sacked by Hunt
(c) flounced because her "Yoghurt-Knitting Tofu-Eating Wokerati" comments were see as piss funny for a student but not something that one of the great officers of state would say
EDIT - Just saw answer upthread - your heading to Utah, across the Front Range and Western Slope.
Wonder IF the free booze ends at the state line?
Robert Peston
@Peston
·
1m
Massive Downing St pile on against
@sajidjavid
. “If Saj hadn’t humiliated the PM” - by forcing her to suspend adviser Stein - “he’d probably be home secretary now, not Shapps”. Wow. Rome is burning
You will be spared my running commentary on the Endtimes
Suella Braverman is Hillary Clinton and I claim $5
Presumably this is related to the Indian Free Trade Agreement. And presumably Braverman said "I can't support the visa element of the deal". And Truss said "I need this fucking deal for fucks sake. You're fucking fired."
Or something like that.
Until today, Truss survived until next year.
Now, I'm not sure she survives as leader until November.....
This is almost inevitably the next escalation. The only question is where it goes from there.
(Sound of ominous blue teletype on a black screen, a la Threads)
You want people who pay tax and NI say who earn, £20,000, or £30,000 or £50,000 and have mortgages on a small house to contribute to your parents care costs so that you can inherit their wealth.
That is people who I am guessing are actually POORER than your parents.
That is correct isn't it?
Also I don't want people to lose their properties at all. I have never said that.
Anyhoo, things will calm down by the weekend as Mike's holiday begins this weekend.
I am expecting a quiet nine day stint as guest editor
If so, Truss is surely toast..... ?
https://twitter.com/patrickjfl/status/1582759424296620032
Sadly, NOT the clowns . . . yet . . .
"Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups!"
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1582758463322873857?s=20&t=AyW4L4lLYXSvO54EX5g0Cw
1. Send everyone to Rwanda. Suella can flip the bird at them for the Daily Mail cameraman.
2. In Rwanda transfer their documents to the points based migration people. Stamp them in
3. Fly the plane back to a different UK airport to welcome them to Britain
Best value for the British taxpayer
Noa Hoffman
@hoffman_noa
·
7m
Understand Suella was due to make a major announcement about slashing student visa numbers tomorrow
Natural Law in the Blue Wall, Veritas in the Red
@DPJHodges
·
3m
The Government is literally falling apart.
It could be that there is something coming that the government really really doesn't want to get out.
Or a stitch up.
I'm not sure which to believe any more.
Can Larry form a government with his mates? It will be better than this Tory filth…
People seem to think a tactical nuke will be just a miliitary/political problem
It will by itself cause economic chaos across the world. Markets will explode with anxiety in every way
People will flee cities etc
You however want to force average home owners owning homes worth just £200 to £300k to lose most of their property value by selling it to pay for care costs. You want to take peoples' properties by scrapping the £86k cap!!!
If only somebody had advised she would be ousted by conference 2023.
@SamCoatesSky
·
1m
Suella Braverman was sacked: PM was advised that the ministerial code had been breached
In fact I must confess - this is embarrassing I know - that I had been thinking Floella Benjamin was Home Secretary.
It just all seemed to fit in somehow.
This is Now.
I wonder who agrees to join the Cabinet now?
I was convinced we wouldn't have a GE until 2024. I'm not so sure now.
But that just makes him a bit silly.
Many of our universities are only financially viable with the mega £ that comes from students from China and similar. Yet Suella wanted to stop them coming here...
https://twitter.com/JeremyHunt_MP/status/1582761133231919104
China will love that…
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1582761620128034816
Ponder that.
@DPJHodges
·
3m
Point people are missing. Liz Truss clearly believed she can sack the Home Secretary less than a week after sacking her Chancellor, and carry on. Anyone who continues to argue she can stay in office has completely taken leave of their senses.