Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
The VP of UX, Bobby Nath, found out when his home Google Nest hub stopped working because it was connected to his work email. I knew Bobby at Amazon, where he was brilliant and adored by one and all. It blows my mind that Google doesn't care about the optics here.
Some of these people are acting as if they are victims of crime rather than just the vicissitudes of the job market.
That’s a really good way of putting it.
They’ll all be getting very handsomely paid off, same as the Twitter employees were. Yeah it sucks to lose a job, but it’s part of life. No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
Not sure about that. Fire at will contracts are quite common in the USA, often with just a few weeks pay in lieu of notice.
I think it common practice for access to be denied before employees are informed in the IT sector so they cannot do sabotage or steal data.
Don’t know about Google, but at Twitter everyone laid off was paid three months’ salary.
Yes, I’ve been that IT guy getting a call in the middle of the night from a senior executive, asking to block systems access for a list of people before 6am. It’s standard procedure, even if it can come across as rather hostile to those on the receiving end if they’ve not experienced it before. Data protection, and the prevention of sabotage or espionage, is way more important to the company that a group of hacked-off former employees.
It’s also usual to allow the redundant back to their office under supervision at some point, to collect their belongings and any non-work files, and to sort the paperwork.
Plenty of reports on financial twitter that the Google package is excellent.
No doubt WAY better than the TWITTER severance package!
Seattle Times ($) - Lawsuit alleges Twitter failed to pay rent for Seattle office
The owner of Century Square is suing Twitter over the tech giant’s departure from the downtown Seattle office building and alleges failure to pay rent in December and January.
A complaint filed in King County Superior Court Thursday alleges Twitter “defaulted by failing to pay the rent owed under the lease for December 2022 and January 2023, and by indicating it would not be paying any rent moving forward.”
Twitter has vacated the building, according to the complaint. Its lease had been in place since August 2013 and the space fit about 200 people.
The filing does not name a dollar amount Twitter owes, but alleges damages “in an amount owed under the lease for past and future rent” as well as other charges. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys fees and interest.
Twitter, which laid off its communications department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment submitted via its website Thursday evening. . . .
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
The VP of UX, Bobby Nath, found out when his home Google Nest hub stopped working because it was connected to his work email. I knew Bobby at Amazon, where he was brilliant and adored by one and all. It blows my mind that Google doesn't care about the optics here.
Some of these people are acting as if they are victims of crime rather than just the vicissitudes of the job market.
That’s a really good way of putting it.
They’ll all be getting very handsomely paid off, same as the Twitter employees were. Yeah it sucks to lose a job, but it’s part of life. No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
Your last sentence is less than accurate, based on personal knowledge. Indeed absurd.
Others are saying that Google’s severance is 16 weeks, plus 2 weeks per year employed. No-one in that situation, not even the office janitor, is worried about making rent next month. The majority of those made redundant will have been on six-figure salaries.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
But some of them will be worried about getting deported when their H1B isn't picked up by another company
Which is also madness policy wise for most if them. People that speak English, are tech-savvy and that are earning >$150k should be giving a fast track to citizenship. Only things missing are no criminal background and alignment with democratic values.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
The only times Boris is unwavering is when there is no personal cost, inconvenience or sacrifice involved. Unless you think he’s been going on special forces missions in the Donbass or has sponsored several hundred refugees, Ukraine falls into this category.
The VP of UX, Bobby Nath, found out when his home Google Nest hub stopped working because it was connected to his work email. I knew Bobby at Amazon, where he was brilliant and adored by one and all. It blows my mind that Google doesn't care about the optics here.
Some of these people are acting as if they are victims of crime rather than just the vicissitudes of the job market.
That’s a really good way of putting it.
They’ll all be getting very handsomely paid off, same as the Twitter employees were. Yeah it sucks to lose a job, but it’s part of life. No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
Your last sentence is less than accurate, based on personal knowledge. Indeed absurd.
Others are saying that Google’s severance is 16 weeks, plus 2 weeks per year employed. No-one in that situation, not even the office janitor, is worried about making rent next month. The majority of those made redundant will have been on six-figure salaries.
What about making rent in six months. In town like Seattle, in business climate where you are NOT alone in getting laid off?
AND what about the contractors and others who did NOT get such a great deal? OR if what was promised does NOT transpire, due to bankruptcy, default, whatever?
Will stipulate that you almost certainly know more about ins & outs of corporate compensation in general.
What I'm objecting to, is your very cavalier assumptions about the scope and impact of major layoffs in tech (or just about any other) sector, on individuals AND communities.
I'm looking forward to the Coronation, I'm sure it will be a beautiful ceremony and it will be a nice opportunity for the country to look forwards together. I like Charles and I think he will be a good King. It's just a shame that the country and its government look like such a bin fire, which will take the shine off the happy day.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
We don’t get to vote for who is king/queen, so quite why people think they should get a say in this either baffles me.
Best way - abolish the lot. It’s 2023 FFS.
President Johnson will be sure to represent the very best about the British character
Johnson was, in reality, the face of the UK for three years.
It's fair to say our other known face in that period, the Queen, was much less embarrassing.
But I don't really get "We may get President Blair or President Johnson!" Both were in fact elected, were on the world stage, and did reflect on us as a nation for better or worse.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
As a former Remainer I can still question the morality of German equivocation over Ukraine and remain skeptical as to Johnson's motives for his frequent trips to Kyiv.
The VP of UX, Bobby Nath, found out when his home Google Nest hub stopped working because it was connected to his work email. I knew Bobby at Amazon, where he was brilliant and adored by one and all. It blows my mind that Google doesn't care about the optics here.
Some of these people are acting as if they are victims of crime rather than just the vicissitudes of the job market.
That’s a really good way of putting it.
They’ll all be getting very handsomely paid off, same as the Twitter employees were. Yeah it sucks to lose a job, but it’s part of life. No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
Your last sentence is less than accurate, based on personal knowledge. Indeed absurd.
Others are saying that Google’s severance is 16 weeks, plus 2 weeks per year employed. No-one in that situation, not even the office janitor, is worried about making rent next month. The majority of those made redundant will have been on six-figure salaries.
What about making rent in six months. In town like Seattle, in business climate where you are NOT alone in getting laid off?
AND what about the contractors and others who did NOT get such a great deal? OR if what was promised does NOT transpire, due to bankruptcy, default, whatever?
Will stipulate that you almost certainly know more about ins & outs of corporate compensation in general.
What I'm objecting to, is your very cavalier assumptions about the scope and impact of major layoffs in tech (or just about any other) sector, on individuals AND communities.
I’ve been one of those tech layoffs, back in 2009, and yeah it’s totally crap.
It’s also part of life, something with which most of us have to deal at some point.
The people complaining hyperbolically, are those who will be getting well into the tens of thousands of dollars in severance.
Contractors take higher pay, in exchange for business risk and flexibility that you don’t get when employed.
Yes, the people to feel sorry for, are the cafe workers in the shop acrosss the road from the Google office. They’ll get two weeks’ pay when the shop has to close. These guys deserve sympathy, not the tech workers.
The VP of UX, Bobby Nath, found out when his home Google Nest hub stopped working because it was connected to his work email. I knew Bobby at Amazon, where he was brilliant and adored by one and all. It blows my mind that Google doesn't care about the optics here.
Some of these people are acting as if they are victims of crime rather than just the vicissitudes of the job market.
That’s a really good way of putting it.
They’ll all be getting very handsomely paid off, same as the Twitter employees were. Yeah it sucks to lose a job, but it’s part of life. No-one fired from Google is going to be worried about making rent next month.
Your last sentence is less than accurate, based on personal knowledge. Indeed absurd.
Others are saying that Google’s severance is 16 weeks, plus 2 weeks per year employed. No-one in that situation, not even the office janitor, is worried about making rent next month. The majority of those made redundant will have been on six-figure salaries.
What about making rent in six months. In town like Seattle, in business climate where you are NOT alone in getting laid off?
AND what about the contractors and others who did NOT get such a great deal? OR if what was promised does NOT transpire, due to bankruptcy, default, whatever?
Will stipulate that you almost certainly know more about ins & outs of corporate compensation in general.
What I'm objecting to, is your very cavalier assumptions about the scope and impact of major layoffs in tech (or just about any other) sector, on individuals AND communities.
Or the 55 year old, for example, or those with family or other financial commitments premised on a particular salary.
I get that the economy moves on and redundancies happen. Worse thing happen at sea etc. But there's a certain lack of basic sympathy in some of the comments. Losing your job is unpleasant even if your prospects are good, and they just aren't for everyone.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Johnson is certainly very good at ditching people who become inconvenient, whether Russian donors, political colleagues, mistresses or wives. He has the chutzpah to deny all knowledge of them, so I suspect his Russian friends are finding poor value for their money. Zelensky should expect the same if it suits Johnson. Fine to welcome him to Kyiv, but check you still have your wallet when he has said goodbye.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
As a former Remainer I can still question the morality of German equivocation over Ukraine and remain skeptical as to Johnson's motives for his frequent trips to Kyiv.
The point is that Remainers claimed the self interest of UK stakeholders would be to coddle up to Russian money. Actually, the self interest quickly became to appeal to the admirable British electorate rather than worry about being well liked in Berlin and Paris.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
As a former Remainer I can still question the morality of German equivocation over Ukraine and remain skeptical as to Johnson's motives for his frequent trips to Kyiv.
The point is that Remainers claimed the self interest of UK stakeholders would be to coddle up to Russian money. Actually, the self interest quickly became to appeal to the admirable British electorate rather than worry about being well liked in Berlin and Paris.
"he point is that Remainers claimed the self interest of UK stakeholders would be to coddle up to Russian money."
Source? Preferably more than one, since "Remainers" is rather brooooooooooooooad brush?
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Although it is true I didn't predict way back in June 2016 that Putin would march on Kyiv. Perhaps WillG had that level of foresight and voted Leave accordingly with one eye on German equivocation in any future conflict. Hats off to him.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
As a former Remainer I can still question the morality of German equivocation over Ukraine and remain skeptical as to Johnson's motives for his frequent trips to Kyiv.
The point is that Remainers claimed the self interest of UK stakeholders would be to coddle up to Russian money. Actually, the self interest quickly became to appeal to the admirable British electorate rather than worry about being well liked in Berlin and Paris.
All these things can be true at the same time .
Brexit is a cluster fuck . Germany and the rest of the EU were wrong to become overly reliant on Russian oil and gas. The City was full of Russian money from dubious sources . The UK has been excellent in its support for Ukraine . Johnson is corrupt and morally bankrupt but might genuinely care about Ukraine but the problem is people might feel cynical about his motives given his track record .
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
Certain do NOT underestimate Bobbie Kennedy's "political skills" especially as he had FAR more political horse sense than Hilary Clinton EVER did.
But fact remains, hard to imagine RFK's political career without JFK breaking trail.
Though worth noting, that both Bobbie and Hilary first came to prominence on their own (more or less in RFK's case) due to their involvement in high-profile legal activity on staff of congressional committees - Bobby in connection with Joe McCarthy (pro) and Jimmy Hoffa (con); and Hilary re: impeachment of Richard Nixon.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
I agree, but also just think SeaShanty missed my point, which was simply most First Ladies don't have a political career, whereas Hilary Clinton very much did.
You don't have to think she deserved it or was any good to see why she was a prominent figure whose comments were of media and public interest - she was powerful and genuinely mattered. So was Trump - he's an appalling person but the fact is he was President and is of genuine political interest.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Although it is true I didn't predict way back in June 2016 that Putin would march on Kyiv. Perhaps WillG had that level of foresight and voted Leave accordingly with one eye on German equivocation in any future conflict. Hats off to him.
The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is. As was the EU's general lack of willing to bolster the UK after the Litvinenko and Skripal poisonings.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
I agree, but also just think SeaShanty missed my point, which was simply most First Ladies don't have a political career, whereas Hilary Clinton very much did.
You don't have to think she deserved it or was any good to see why she was a prominent figure whose comments were of media and public interest - she was powerful and genuinely mattered. So was Trump - he's an appalling person but the fact is he was President and is of genuine political interest.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
I agree, but also just think SeaShanty missed my point, which was simply most First Ladies don't have a political career, whereas Hilary Clinton very much did.
You don't have to think she deserved it or was any good to see why she was a prominent figure whose comments were of media and public interest - she was powerful and genuinely mattered. So was Trump - he's an appalling person but the fact is he was President and is of genuine political interest.
Of course Hilary Clinton's role model - to a point - was Eleanor Roosevelt.
However, Mrs Roosevelt wielded soft power FAR more effectively than Mrs Clinton did with soft OR hard power.
In part because Hilary lacked Eleanor's superior political instincts.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
Certain do NOT underestimate Bobbie Kennedy's "political skills" especially as he had FAR more political horse sense than Hilary Clinton EVER did.
But fact remains, hard to imagine RFK's political career without JFK breaking trail.
Though worth noting, that both Bobbie and Hilary first came to prominence on their own (more or less in RFK's case) due to their involvement in high-profile legal activity on staff of congressional committees - Bobby in connection with Joe McCarthy (pro) and Jimmy Hoffa (con); and Hilary re: impeachment of Richard Nixon.
Nonetheless, rating his chances as ‘zilch’ without the family connections is a little ungenerous. ‘Massively reduced’ would have been fair.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, isn't it almost always the case that they are on to a large extent due to their connection? I mean, Cherie Blair was a successful QC, but successful QCs might get a brief TV gig once in a blue moon on an issue where they gave special experience. Likewise I'm a great Michelle Obama fan, but she wasn't going on Oprah had she married a different college professor.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
"Other than Hilary Clinton, who got elected and built a substantial reputation in her own right, . . ."
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
But she did have a substantial policy role in the White House, was subsequently elected, did become Secretary of State under another President, did get her party's nomination, and got within a whisker of being President.
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
SeaShanty rather underestimates RFK’s political skills, too, I think.
Certain do NOT underestimate Bobbie Kennedy's "political skills" especially as he had FAR more political horse sense than Hilary Clinton EVER did.
But fact remains, hard to imagine RFK's political career without JFK breaking trail.
Though worth noting, that both Bobbie and Hilary first came to prominence on their own (more or less in RFK's case) due to their involvement in high-profile legal activity on staff of congressional committees - Bobby in connection with Joe McCarthy (pro) and Jimmy Hoffa (con); and Hilary re: impeachment of Richard Nixon.
Nonetheless, rating his chances as ‘zilch’ without the family connections is a little ungenerous. ‘Massively reduced’ would have been fair.
Getting elected US Senator from New York State, is slightly different proposition from getting elected statewide in, say, Delaware.
Really don't think we're arguing about much here, to be frank (or even fred!)
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
As a former Remainer I can still question the morality of German equivocation over Ukraine and remain skeptical as to Johnson's motives for his frequent trips to Kyiv.
The point is that Remainers claimed the self interest of UK stakeholders would be to coddle up to Russian money. Actually, the self interest quickly became to appeal to the admirable British electorate rather than worry about being well liked in Berlin and Paris.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Although it is true I didn't predict way back in June 2016 that Putin would march on Kyiv. Perhaps WillG had that level of foresight and voted Leave accordingly with one eye on German equivocation in any future conflict. Hats off to him.
The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is. As was the EU's general lack of willing to bolster the UK after the Litvinenko and Skripal poisonings.
You seem to have a particular axe to grind with the EU over and above the usual Brexit intrigue. I can't recall the EU reaction to Skripal or Litvinenko, although my sketchy memory of the aftermath was that individual EU nations responded with diplomatic sanctions, although I may be wrong, so I will take your word that they did nothing.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is. As was the EU's general lack of willing to bolster the UK after the Litvinenko and Skripal poisonings.
Disagree on our intervention vs Gaddafi, based on some admittedfly extrfemely bellicose statements by his son. Gaddafi was a unique case of someone talked into giving up WMD voluntarily, whereupon we knifed him at the first opportunity, after which we lost interest and let the country collapse into apparently permanent civil war. We are FAR too willing to intervene all over the place, without thinking much about what happens next - something I learned after voting for the Iraq intervention. German caution is particularly appropriate givien their history, but sensible anyway.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
There has been a fairly noticeable theme from some anti-Johnson people about Russian influence and involvement. And trying to work around the fact that according to a wide range of sources (some not naturally pro Johnson) that his support for Ukraine has been steadfast.
For some people it’s a Bad Fact.
This is the kind of thing that happens when your world view is tribal - people you oppose can’t do something right.
Yes, that well known Tory, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate, Rachel Johnson.
She was never a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate. She joined the Lib Dems briefly in 2017, and said she was interested in standing somewhere, but never did and was never an approved candidate (as a member for under a year she wasn't qualified under the rules). She later went to ChangeUK and I believe is now back with the Tories (although it isn't 100% clear). Certainly, she's wheeled out to bat for her brother.
Yes, it was Change U.K. she stood for, not the Lib Dems.
It should be noted that she was a European Election Parliamentary candidate, not a UK one.
Aye, true. I should have added that rider.
In any event, her whole political career has been milking her brother for all it's worth.
Ask yourself this, would Rachel Johnson have been on the programme if her brother was not Boris Johnson?
That’s an interesting question. She is a noted person in her own right, but clearly the connection to her brother is relevant.
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
I was listening to her radio programme this evening, driving back home.
I don’t think she’d have got the gig had it not been for her brother.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
We don’t get to vote for who is king/queen, so quite why people think they should get a say in this either baffles me.
Best way - abolish the lot. It’s 2023 FFS.
President Johnson will be sure to represent the very best about the British character
Johnson was, in reality, the face of the UK for three years.
It's fair to say our other known face in that period, the Queen, was much less embarrassing.
But I don't really get "We may get President Blair or President Johnson!" Both were in fact elected, were on the world stage, and did reflect on us as a nation for better or worse.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
You really are a whopper of the highest order...
I’m sure he will be devastated by such criticism by a junior provincial solicitor. Assuming qualified and all that.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
You really are a whopper of the highest order...
I’m sure he will be devastated by such criticism by a junior provincial solicitor. Assuming qualified and all that.
His opinion sure carries much less weight by his not being based in London.
There has been a fairly noticeable theme from some anti-Johnson people about Russian influence and involvement. And trying to work around the fact that according to a wide range of sources (some not naturally pro Johnson) that his support for Ukraine has been steadfast.
For some people it’s a Bad Fact.
This is the kind of thing that happens when your world view is tribal - people you oppose can’t do something right.
My own skepticism is much more focused. I don't believe Boris Johnson knows difference between right and wrong.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
You really are a whopper of the highest order...
I’m sure he will be devastated by such criticism by a junior provincial solicitor. Assuming qualified and all that.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
You really are a whopper of the highest order...
I’m sure he will be devastated by such criticism by a junior provincial solicitor. Assuming qualified and all that.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
We don’t get to vote for who is king/queen, so quite why people think they should get a say in this either baffles me.
Best way - abolish the lot. It’s 2023 FFS.
President Johnson will be sure to represent the very best about the British character
Johnson was, in reality, the face of the UK for three years.
It's fair to say our other known face in that period, the Queen, was much less embarrassing.
But I don't really get "We may get President Blair or President Johnson!" Both were in fact elected, were on the world stage, and did reflect on us as a nation for better or worse.
But they were not the representation of Britain that the world remembers. They were, in the words of the late great Sir Robin Day "Here today, gone tomorrow politicians". They were and are, also, hugely divisive. That would have remained the case whether they were PM or President. Hence the necessity for a non elected head of state under a constitutional monarchy.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Next up: Farage was really a Remainer, don't ya know.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Next up: Farage was really a Remainer, don't ya know.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Indeed it is the alt right and Lexiters that are a bit pro-Putin.
And Germany. It's like Remainer support for democracy: it's there in theory but their continuous push is to move power away from democratic elections to a bureaucratic oligarchy.
You really are a whopper of the highest order...
I’m sure he will be devastated by such criticism by a junior provincial solicitor. Assuming qualified and all that.
His opinion sure carries much less weight by his not being based in London.
The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is. As was the EU's general lack of willing to bolster the UK after the Litvinenko and Skripal poisonings.
Disagree on our intervention vs Gaddafi, based on some admittedfly extrfemely bellicose statements by his son. Gaddafi was a unique case of someone talked into giving up WMD voluntarily, whereupon we knifed him at the first opportunity, after which we lost interest and let the country collapse into apparently permanent civil war. We are FAR too willing to intervene all over the place, without thinking much about what happens next - something I learned after voting for the Iraq intervention. German caution is particularly appropriate givien their history, but sensible anyway.
In Ukraine, we cannot know what happens next if Ukraine wins - it's pretty much out of our hands. Perhaps Putin falls and is replaced by someone else - better or worse. Perhaps Putin withdraws and paints it as a 'win'. Perhaps he keeps on bombing Ukraine from over the border and turns Russia into a tragic North Korea-style country.
But you also need to consider the other side: what happens next if Russia wins, if they end up controlling Ukraine (either de facto or de jure). Their government have made it *very* clear that they want all of eastern Europe under their control. So what happens then? Do you think nice Mister Putin will just settle at Ukraine and not interfere politically or militarily in any of the neighbouring countries he evidently covets? If so, what makes you think that given his history?
We can't know what's going to happen. But we can know what is morally right: and what is happening to Ukraine is an evil. You may want the evil to win. I want that evil to be defeated, lest it is stronger when we do have to fight it.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Nope. In this case Mexicanpete is wrong. The official Leave campaign explicitly refused to include Farage in their campaign. Hence the reason Aaron Banks tried a legal challenge to get Leave.EU made into the official campaign as he believed it was a stitch up to ensure Remain won.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Nope. In this case Mexicanpete is wrong. The official Leave campaign explicitly refused to include Farage in their campaign. Hence the reason Aaron Banks tried a legal challenge to get Leave.EU made into the official campaign as he believed it was a stitch up to ensure Remain won.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
You are at least being a little disingenuous to me. Yes Farage was persona non grata in Team Johnson-Cummings, but he remained a high profile figure in the greater Leave campaign.
The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is. As was the EU's general lack of willing to bolster the UK after the Litvinenko and Skripal poisonings.
Disagree on our intervention vs Gaddafi, based on some admittedfly extrfemely bellicose statements by his son. Gaddafi was a unique case of someone talked into giving up WMD voluntarily, whereupon we knifed him at the first opportunity, after which we lost interest and let the country collapse into apparently permanent civil war. We are FAR too willing to intervene all over the place, without thinking much about what happens next - something I learned after voting for the Iraq intervention. German caution is particularly appropriate givien their history, but sensible anyway.
The big difference between the situation with Ukraine now, and the situation with Iraq (2003), Libya, Syria, and many others, is that Ukraine has a democratically elected government, a healthy civil society and a plural media. There's something already there which is asking for our support, we're not trying to create something from a vacuum.
This is such a massive difference, and goes to the heart of why many of our interventions have been disastrous, that I think it makes comparing intervention in Ukraine with intervention in Libya absurd.
I've been a pretty consistent critic of Western intervention for many years, including Iraq (2003), so I have a longer pedigree than you at doing so, and I genuinely do think that Ukraine is a very different case and Western intervention is unusually worth supporting.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
You are right about my dislike of Johnson.
You are implying I am making assumptions on Johnson and his motives for Ukraine. I am, but then I still find it astonishing that Johnson is still a player after the yacht affair, and so should you. I have no proof Johnson didn't merely indulge in a free lunch, but you haven't proven the contrary by your Daily Telegraphesque editorial regarding Johnson and Ukraine.
He grimaced when I asked about the contents of the cooling ponds at the new nuclear power stations they are building (American and South Korean).
He grimaced not because he is against nuclear power. It was because he agreed with what I was suggesting will come next. He saw it as inevitable.
Oh come on!
What were you suggesting will come next?
"Civil" plutonium is so called because civilian nuclear power stations have lots of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced. It is claimed that this makes making it into a bomb impossible.
The US detonated a test bomb using civil plutonium during the 60s, IIRC Using UK provided plutonium, again IIRC. It must have been interesting. At 20%+ of Pu-240, the core would have been as physically hot as a 100w light bulb....
Edit: It would be pretty easy to put some fuel through on a short fuel cycle to avoid the 240 issue.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Nope. In this case Mexicanpete is wrong. The official Leave campaign explicitly refused to include Farage in their campaign. Hence the reason Aaron Banks tried a legal challenge to get Leave.EU made into the official campaign as he believed it was a stitch up to ensure Remain won.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
You are at least being a little disingenuous to me. Yes Farage was persona non grata in Team Johnson-Cummings, but he remained a high profile figure in the greater Leave campaign.
Put it this way.
Without Farage doing his thing, or the Romford UKIP van blasting out the theme from The Great Escape, what percentage would Leave have got in 2016?
Impossible to tell, but I'd guess mid-40s. Having two Leave campaigns that could deny each other looked funny at the time but I'm confident that it expanded the overall reach of Leaverdom.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
It's more a poor reflection on the betting companies that create such a market. Irrespective of the betting, it woukd be best if Harry became Governor of Pitcairn Island.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
You are right about my dislike of Johnson.
You are implying I am making assumptions on Johnson and his motives for Ukraine. I am, but then I still find it astonishing that Johnson is still a player after the yacht affair, and so should you. I have no proof Johnson didn't merely indulge in a free lunch, but you haven't proven the contrary by your Daily Telegraphesque editorial regarding Johnson and Ukraine.
The problem is that this is the way Russia (and many countries) operate. Look at Mandelson and his strong links with Russia (e.g (1) from when he was still in government, or (2) and (3) from years later), if you want an example from the other side of the political divide. Or the way OGH got an evening out at the Russian Embassy (if I recall correctly; apologies if not).
Johnson was a fool. But I think his subsequent actions speak far louder than your suspicions.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Nope. In this case Mexicanpete is wrong. The official Leave campaign explicitly refused to include Farage in their campaign. Hence the reason Aaron Banks tried a legal challenge to get Leave.EU made into the official campaign as he believed it was a stitch up to ensure Remain won.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
You are at least being a little disingenuous to me. Yes Farage was persona non grata in Team Johnson-Cummings, but he remained a high profile figure in the greater Leave campaign.
Put it this way.
Without Farage doing his thing, or the Romford UKIP van blasting out the theme from The Great Escape, what percentage would Leave have got in 2016?
Impossible to tell, but I'd guess mid-40s. Having two Leave campaigns that could deny each other looked funny at the time but I'm confident that it expanded the overall reach of Leaverdom.
Agreed. It's not like they took votes off each other.
Only if you are daft enough to think that human flourishing and happiness can only be measured by, and is wholly dependent upon, money and economic growth.
The measurements used by the ft article are no more use in the UK than they would be in trying to measure the wellbeing of an unknown group of people in a remote valley in Papua New Guinea. It's just that we keep of being told they are.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
You are right about my dislike of Johnson.
You are implying I am making assumptions on Johnson and his motives for Ukraine. I am, but then I still find it astonishing that Johnson is still a player after the yacht affair, and so should you. I have no proof Johnson didn't merely indulge in a free lunch, but you haven't proven the contrary by your Daily Telegraphesque editorial regarding Johnson and Ukraine.
The problem is that this is the way Russia (and many countries) operate. Look at Mandelson and his strong links with Russia (e.g (1) from when he was still in government, or (2) and (3) from years later), if you want an example from the other side of the political divide. Or the way OGH got an evening out at the Russian Embassy (if I recall correctly; apologies if not).
Johnson was a fool. But I think his subsequent actions speak far louder than your suspicions.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
Waterloo station isn’t named after battle of Waterloo - it’s named after Waterloo Bridge, nearest important point when the station was built. As joyous as it was when the Eurostar arrived at Waterloo it wasn’t as we chuckled at.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
You are right about my dislike of Johnson.
You are implying I am making assumptions on Johnson and his motives for Ukraine. I am, but then I still find it astonishing that Johnson is still a player after the yacht affair, and so should you. I have no proof Johnson didn't merely indulge in a free lunch, but you haven't proven the contrary by your Daily Telegraphesque editorial regarding Johnson and Ukraine.
The problem is that this is the way Russia (and many countries) operate. Look at Mandelson and his strong links with Russia (e.g (1) from when he was still in government, or (2) and (3) from years later), if you want an example from the other side of the political divide. Or the way OGH got an evening out at the Russian Embassy (if I recall correctly; apologies if not).
Johnson was a fool. But I think his subsequent actions speak far louder than your suspicions.
Wow, that really is an enormous Mandelson shaped squirrel you are pointing out to me.
Mind you, I can still see Johnson in my peripheral vision.
You miss my point: this is the way Russia operates. It's not just about direct monetary corruption; it's about favours and other intangibles. But again, Russia did not exactly get any favours from Boris.
But it's also odd that you so blithely disregard the actions of someone on your side.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
He still scares the shit out of the HYFUDders in the Conservative party.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
Waterloo station isn’t named after battle of Waterloo - it’s named after Waterloo Bridge, nearest important point when the station was built. As joyous as it was when the Eurostar arrived at Waterloo it wasn’t as we chuckled at.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
How convenient to throw enough caveats in that your demands make your claim unfalsifiable. The trips point is deliberately misleading. Boris, for all his flaws, has been unwavering and leading in the military and financial support provided to Kyiv.
Oh perlease. If it were anyone else I might give them the benefit of the doubt. Johnson's comprehensive self serving backstory allows me to treat his Ukrainian altruism, not so much with a pinch of salt, but with the entire county of Cheshire.
Self-serving or otherwise, the UK has been a steadfast ally of Ukraine while Germany equivocates with one eye on future Russian deals. Completely the opposite to what Remainers predicted and no hint of contrition or self-reflection.
I had not realised there was a “Remainer” position on Ukraine. Or is this just another Brexiter delusion?
Only because Remainers and the BBC pushed him so much. The Leave campaign did everything they could to marginalize him. He doesn't represent mainstream Leavers.
F*** me! He was their poster boy!
Remember the first rule of Brexit: everything that happens is the fault of Remainers & no responsibility whatsoever can attach to those who campaigned or voted for Brexit.
Nope. In this case Mexicanpete is wrong. The official Leave campaign explicitly refused to include Farage in their campaign. Hence the reason Aaron Banks tried a legal challenge to get Leave.EU made into the official campaign as he believed it was a stitch up to ensure Remain won.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
You are at least being a little disingenuous to me. Yes Farage was persona non grata in Team Johnson-Cummings, but he remained a high profile figure in the greater Leave campaign.
Leave wouldn't have won with Farage as an official face of the Campaign. And they wouldn't have won if he'd been excluded from the Campaign. So what they did - Farage neither in nor out - was perfect. Textbook black op with deniability.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
Waterloo station isn’t named after battle of Waterloo - it’s named after Waterloo Bridge, nearest important point when the station was built. As joyous as it was when the Eurostar arrived at Waterloo it wasn’t as we chuckled at.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
Johnson was using Ukraine for deflection and 'Great Man' cosplay. Everything we know about him points to that conclusion.
I seem to remember when people argued Germany was the leader of the free world and Britain would be captured by Russian money. Any rethinking going on?
Come back to me for an answer when we have a transcript of the conversation between Johnson and Lebedev, and an accurate report of Johnson's activity and with whom he engaged on Lebedev's yacht whilst Johnson was Foreign Secretary. Johnson rocking up to Kyiv every five minutes doesn't clear up that particular mess, does it?
That's pretty much an impossible set of requests to ask for. But the way I see it; if Johnson et al did receive Russian money (and I don't think they did), then the Russians got the worst deal ever, given the way he extended Operation Orbital and was leading the world (yes, really) in the reaction to the invasion.
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
Johnson was using Ukraine for deflection and 'Great Man' cosplay. Everything we know about him points to that conclusion.
Nope. Your biases point to that conclusion. I really don't see it.
It's more a poor reflection on the betting companies that create such a market. Irrespective of the betting, it would be best if Harry became Governor of Pitcairn Island.
I bet in Class 6 sellers at Lingfield but i wouldn't be tempted into this market.
A curious day - if I'm left with any impression (and I don't do impressions) it's the growing realisation of the degradation of longevity. The longer a party stays in power, the less it seems to think "the rules" apply.
Yet, democracy doesn't work that way and the other contrary sense I get is of individuals trying to get what they can while they can. Is there now an inevitability of defeat in Conservative circles? The only defences I saw on here this morning to the charges against Zahawi and Johnson were, in the latter's case, "he's just Boris being Boris" and the notion since similar things supposedly happened in the long period of Labour rule (and I'm sure they did), that somehow excuses and legitimises any such actions now.
Thus do we now have to endure 20 months of this Government's death throes which will be entertaining, irritating and frustrating in equal measure.
Skimming last night's Omnisis data, the "Likely to Vote" question has Labour ahead 47-24. A couple of oddities from the sub-samples - the London numbers are 44-22 The 2019 Conservative vote splits 55% Conservative, 22% Labour and 11% Don't Know which is slightly contrary to some other data.
The 2016 Remain voters split 57-17 in favour of Labour while the 2016 leave vote is 36-34 to the Conservatives.
It's more a poor reflection on the betting companies that create such a market. Irrespective of the betting, it woukd be best if Harry became Governor of Pitcairn Island.
I would have thought that Andrew would be more suitable for that job.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
Waterloo station isn’t named after battle of Waterloo - it’s named after Waterloo Bridge, nearest important point when the station was built. As joyous as it was when the Eurostar arrived at Waterloo it wasn’t as we chuckled at.
What was Waterloo bridge named after?
Obviously the Battle of Waterloo but, contrary to popular belief, the station is named after the bridge not the battle. Having been the sort of knob who laughed about the eurostar bringing frenchies into Waterloo station I was humbled to discover I was misguided.
TFL Language guidance: Some of the new language guidelines do feel a bit weirdly OTT, though. Staff are urged to ‘avoid referring to conflicts by name if possible’. So, for example, to say ‘late 1940s’ instead of ‘post-World War II’. It’s not clear in what context this might come up. Maybe ‘The 19.39 to New Cross is delayed and is now expected in the late 19.40s.’
Waterloo station isn’t named after battle of Waterloo - it’s named after Waterloo Bridge, nearest important point when the station was built. As joyous as it was when the Eurostar arrived at Waterloo it wasn’t as we chuckled at.
What was Waterloo bridge named after?
Obviously the Battle of Waterloo but, contrary to popular belief, the station is named after the bridge not the battle. Having been the sort of knob who laughed about the eurostar bringing frenchies into Waterloo station I was humbled to discover I was misguided.
I imagine it’s a relief to any French visitors when they realise we are only indirectly insulting them…
It's more a poor reflection on the betting companies that create such a market. Irrespective of the betting, it woukd be best if Harry became Governor of Pitcairn Island.
Comments
I have issues with spouses in a similar way. For instance Michelle Obama, or Cheri Blair. No issue if appearing in their own right for something they have done, huge issues if just because they are married to X.
Weirdly, when my Uni installed its new VC, his wife came in his stead at an event. I found this astonishing, still do.
Seattle Times ($) - Lawsuit alleges Twitter failed to pay rent for Seattle office
The owner of Century Square is suing Twitter over the tech giant’s departure from the downtown Seattle office building and alleges failure to pay rent in December and January.
A complaint filed in King County Superior Court Thursday alleges Twitter “defaulted by failing to pay the rent owed under the lease for December 2022 and January 2023, and by indicating it would not be paying any rent moving forward.”
Twitter has vacated the building, according to the complaint. Its lease had been in place since August 2013 and the space fit about 200 people.
The filing does not name a dollar amount Twitter owes, but alleges damages “in an amount owed under the lease for past and future rent” as well as other charges. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys fees and interest.
Twitter, which laid off its communications department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment submitted via its website Thursday evening. . . .
Best way - abolish the lot. It’s 2023 FFS.
I'm not that bothered about it. There are celebrities who receive attention for much less, and it is kind of a different insight than talking to a here today, gone tomorrow cabinet minister.
AND what about the contractors and others who did NOT get such a great deal? OR if what was promised does NOT transpire, due to bankruptcy, default, whatever?
Will stipulate that you almost certainly know more about ins & outs of corporate compensation in general.
What I'm objecting to, is your very cavalier assumptions about the scope and impact of major layoffs in tech (or just about any other) sector, on individuals AND communities.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/22/tories-policy-conservative-party-government
This piece by John Harris nicely sums up where we are.
It's fair to say our other known face in that period, the Queen, was much less embarrassing.
But I don't really get "We may get President Blair or President Johnson!" Both were in fact elected, were on the world stage, and did reflect on us as a nation for better or worse.
‘We will not passively watch Ukraine bleed to death,’ Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki says.
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-ready-to-build-smaller-coalition-to-send-tanks-to-ukraine-without-germany-war-russia/
It’s also part of life, something with which most of us have to deal at some point.
The people complaining hyperbolically, are those who will be getting well into the tens of thousands of dollars in severance.
Contractors take higher pay, in exchange for business risk and flexibility that you don’t get when employed.
Yes, the people to feel sorry for, are the cafe workers in the shop acrosss the road from the Google office. They’ll get two weeks’ pay when the shop has to close. These guys deserve sympathy, not the tech workers.
“Even saying we’re going to put Abrams tanks in, I think would be enough for Germany to unleash,” Rep. Michael McCaul said.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/22/mccaul-ukraine-tanks-germany-russia-00078894
I get that the economy moves on and redundancies happen. Worse thing happen at sea etc. But there's a certain lack of basic sympathy in some of the comments. Losing your job is unpleasant even if your prospects are good, and they just aren't for everyone.
Really? Think that the record shows this statement to be a REAL streeeeeeeeeeeetch!
> As First Lady, Hilary Clinton made substantial contribution to health care reform - NOT. Rather, set it back for decades.
> As US Senator, her contribution was at best marginal
> As US Secretary of State, ditto.
Note that odds of Hilary Clinton being elected US Senator from New York State in 2000 IF she was not Bill Clinton's wife, were identical to odds of Robert Kennedy being elected US Senator from New York State in 1964 IF he wasn't John Kennedy's brother - zilch.
Source? Preferably more than one, since "Remainers" is rather brooooooooooooooad brush?
The fact she was well placed due to Bill is true. But people are well placed due to various accidents of birth, networking, and marrying well.
The fact is she had a major political career and, while it's always been true she's been Bill's wife, and you can think she deserved it or not, there were reasons to give her prominence in the media post-2000 due to her position.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_sy-yFAo_4
Brexit is a cluster fuck .
Germany and the rest of the EU were wrong to become overly reliant on Russian oil and gas.
The City was full of Russian money from dubious sources .
The UK has been excellent in its support for Ukraine .
Johnson is corrupt and morally bankrupt but might genuinely care about Ukraine but the problem is people might feel cynical about his motives given his track record .
But fact remains, hard to imagine RFK's political career without JFK breaking trail.
Though worth noting, that both Bobbie and Hilary first came to prominence on their own (more or less in RFK's case) due to their involvement in high-profile legal activity on staff of congressional committees - Bobby in connection with Joe McCarthy (pro) and Jimmy Hoffa (con); and Hilary re: impeachment of Richard Nixon.
You don't have to think she deserved it or was any good to see why she was a prominent figure whose comments were of media and public interest - she was powerful and genuinely mattered. So was Trump - he's an appalling person but the fact is he was President and is of genuine political interest.
First Family - Vaughn Meader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWcyt4Z1L5Q
As to FLOTUSes, Of course Hilary Clinton's role model - to a point - was Eleanor Roosevelt.
However, Mrs Roosevelt wielded soft power FAR more effectively than Mrs Clinton did with soft OR hard power.
In part because Hilary lacked Eleanor's superior political instincts.
‘Massively reduced’ would have been fair.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=l7TWLxCIgwE&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE
Really don't think we're arguing about much here, to be frank (or even fred!)
the EU over and above the usual Brexit intrigue. I can't recall the EU reaction to Skripal or Litvinenko, although my sketchy memory of the aftermath was that individual EU nations responded with diplomatic sanctions, although I may be wrong, so I will take your word that they did nothing.
Quite a perspective to consider when discussing Net Zero and greener economies at a global level.
https://twitter.com/MacroAlf/status/1616923467395244035
There has been a fairly noticeable theme from some anti-Johnson people about Russian influence and involvement. And trying to work around the fact that according to a wide range of sources (some not naturally pro Johnson) that his support for Ukraine has been steadfast.
For some people it’s a Bad Fact.
This is the kind of thing that happens when your world view is tribal - people you oppose can’t do something right.
I don’t think she’d have got the gig had it not been for her brother.
The past 15 years have been a disappointment on a scale we could hardly have imagined
https://www.ft.com/content/ef830f78-75ee-4b91-a48e-04defa0f96d4
“mainstream leavers”. Is that actually a thing? Do they exist, any more?
Or do you mean mainstreaming in the urban slang sense?
Although not sure it will be that different.
PBers LOVE to paint with VERY broad brushes.
OK perhaps IF your just slapping paint about.
But you also need to consider the other side: what happens next if Russia wins, if they end up controlling Ukraine (either de facto or de jure). Their government have made it *very* clear that they want all of eastern Europe under their control. So what happens then? Do you think nice Mister Putin will just settle at Ukraine and not interfere politically or militarily in any of the neighbouring countries he evidently covets? If so, what makes you think that given his history?
We can't know what's going to happen. But we can know what is morally right: and what is happening to Ukraine is an evil. You may want the evil to win. I want that evil to be defeated, lest it is stronger when we do have to fight it.
In the words of Dominic Cummings, Farage was a "vain shallow egomaniac" and an "irrelevant pundit, happily and safely ignored".
Whereas look at Scholz and the German government: their actions are so genuinely mystifying that it's easy to come up with conspiracy theories to 'explain' it, including money. *If* the German government's actions is due to such corruption, then the Russians got a really, really, good deal.
You'll probably think bad of Boris whatever. But his actions on Ukraine show that he is certainly not pro-Russian, and was not captured by Russian money. Unlike, say, Germany.
He grimaced when I asked about the contents of the cooling ponds at the new nuclear power stations they are building (American and South Korean).
He grimaced not because he is against nuclear power. It was because he agreed with what I was suggesting will come next. He saw it as inevitable.
What were you suggesting will come next?
This is such a massive difference, and goes to the heart of why many of our interventions have been disastrous, that I think it makes comparing intervention in Ukraine with intervention in Libya absurd.
I've been a pretty consistent critic of Western intervention for many years, including Iraq (2003), so I have a longer pedigree than you at doing so, and I genuinely do think that Ukraine is a very different case and Western intervention is unusually worth supporting.
You are implying I am making assumptions on Johnson and his motives for Ukraine. I am, but then I still find it astonishing that Johnson is still a player after the yacht affair, and so should you. I have no proof Johnson didn't merely indulge in a free lunch, but you haven't proven the contrary by your Daily Telegraphesque editorial regarding Johnson and Ukraine.
The US detonated a test bomb using civil plutonium during the 60s, IIRC
Using UK provided plutonium, again IIRC. It must have been interesting. At 20%+ of Pu-240, the core would have been as physically hot as a 100w light bulb....
Edit: It would be pretty easy to put some fuel through on a short fuel cycle to avoid the 240 issue.
Without Farage doing his thing, or the Romford UKIP van blasting out the theme from The Great Escape, what percentage would Leave have got in 2016?
Impossible to tell, but I'd guess mid-40s. Having two Leave campaigns that could deny each other looked funny at the time but I'm confident that it expanded the overall reach of Leaverdom.
In any case while HRHs can be removed from non working royals like Andrew and Harry, non Royal titles are more difficult once granted
Johnson was a fool. But I think his subsequent actions speak far louder than your suspicions.
(1): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tell-truth-about-oligarch-links-mandelson-told-974461.html
(2): https://www.ft.com/content/abc0964e-4f94-303e-b933-21db6eb6227f
(3): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/07/exclusive-lord-mandelson-asked-vladimir-putin-help-russian-company/
The measurements used by the ft article are no more use in the UK than they would be in trying to measure the wellbeing of an unknown group of people in a remote valley in Papua New Guinea. It's just that we keep of being told they are.
Mind you, I can still see Johnson in my peripheral vision.
But it's also odd that you so blithely disregard the actions of someone on your side.
If so: they've given themselves a massive load of hideous PR for no gain.
A curious day - if I'm left with any impression (and I don't do impressions) it's the growing realisation of the degradation of longevity. The longer a party stays in power, the less it seems to think "the rules" apply.
Yet, democracy doesn't work that way and the other contrary sense I get is of individuals trying to get what they can while they can. Is there now an inevitability of defeat in Conservative circles? The only defences I saw on here this morning to the charges against Zahawi and Johnson were, in the latter's case, "he's just Boris being Boris" and the notion since similar things supposedly happened in the long period of Labour rule (and I'm sure they did), that somehow excuses and legitimises any such actions now.
Thus do we now have to endure 20 months of this Government's death throes which will be entertaining, irritating and frustrating in equal measure.
Skimming last night's Omnisis data, the "Likely to Vote" question has Labour ahead 47-24. A couple of oddities from the sub-samples - the London numbers are 44-22 The 2019 Conservative vote splits 55% Conservative, 22% Labour and 11% Don't Know which is slightly contrary to some other data.
The 2016 Remain voters split 57-17 in favour of Labour while the 2016 leave vote is 36-34 to the Conservatives.