Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
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…
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.
But what's going relatively great here to compensate for the material side going relatively poorly?
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…
They will be staggered, especially the French waiter community, that it’s possible to indirectly insult people rather than just directly insult them.
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.
Gare D'Austerlitz is also named after the bridge that's named after the battle, I believe.
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…
Hmm, they do have a Gare d'Austerlitz in Paris.
Yup Paris is full of monuments and places connecting to victories over other European (and non European) nations. It’s almost as if Paris was the capital of an Empire for several hundred years.
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…
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…
Hmm, they do have a Gare d'Austerlitz in Paris.
Yup Paris is full of monuments and places connecting to victories over other European (and non European) nations. It’s almost as if Paris was the capital of an Empire for several hundred years.
That’s precisely why there is no “Pont de Jersey” in Paris. They tried but one of Yorkshire’s finest soldiers stopped them in their (train) tracks.
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…
Hmm, they do have a Gare d'Austerlitz in Paris.
Yup Paris is full of monuments and places connecting to victories over other European (and non European) nations. It’s almost as if Paris was the capital of an Empire for several hundred years.
That’s precisely why there is no “Pont de Jersey” in Paris. They tried but one of Yorkshire’s finest soldiers stopped them in their (train) tracks.
Incidentally, the reason the bridge is still there is that Wellington prevented the Prussians blowing it up.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
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.
Assessing Boris Johnson as a person driven by shallow self-interest isn't bias. It's aligned to all the evidence. It's YOUR bias - created by your passion for the Ukraine cause - leading you astray on this one. Not on the Ukraine cause, which is just and rightful, but on Johnson. If anything he did was good it's by pure chance.
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.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s down to the Ukrainians feeling gratitude for *early* and committed support. Ongoing since the 2014 invasion, as it was.
I recall before the invasion, when the U.K. and the US were being described as “inflaming lol the situation by sending arms. By some here.
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 don’t think we’re quite that much of mystery to ourselves. Perhaps you’d like to describe for us the positive measures of progress over the past fifteen years.
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.
If Farage not Boris had led the formal Leave campaign it would likely have been around 55% Remain 45% Leave, similar to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum in favour of the status quo.
However UKIP would have got 15 to 20% at the next general election, mainly at Tory expense
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s just one of those situations where everyone can be a winner.
Boris survives - good PR Zelenskyy - just good PR Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, he’s a martyr hero. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Carrie is raking the insurance in. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Putin has a giggle. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, a large part of the UK has a giggle.
Boris survives, added stories for the rubber chicken circuit, thus more money.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s down to the Ukrainians feeling gratitude for *early* and committed support. Ongoing since the 2014 invasion, as it was.
I recall before the invasion, when the U.K. and the US were being described as “inflaming lol the situation by sending arms. By some here.
Gratitude is all well and good. My point is that Z's strategy re: BJ goes BEYOND gratitude.
Speaking of Winston Churchill impersonators, between May 1940 and December 1941(also after) WSC spent a LOT of time both flattering AND cajoling USA in general, and FDR in particular.
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.
In my case it is not so much tribal as a visceral dislike of the man, Johnson.
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s just one of those situations where everyone can be a winner.
Boris survives - good PR Zelenskyy - just good PR Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, he’s a martyr hero. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Carrie is raking the insurance in. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Putin has a giggle. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, a large part of the UK has a giggle.
Boris survives, added stories for the rubber chicken circuit, thus more money.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s just one of those situations where everyone can be a winner.
Boris survives - good PR Zelenskyy - just good PR Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, he’s a martyr hero. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Carrie is raking the insurance in. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Putin has a giggle. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, a large part of the UK has a giggle...
Would they ?
I count myself among his detractors, But I would be decidedly unamused.
And most of his detractors recognise that his Ukraine stance, whatever his motives, deserves credit.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s just one of those situations where everyone can be a winner.
Boris survives - good PR Zelenskyy - just good PR Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, he’s a martyr hero. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Carrie is raking the insurance in. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Putin has a giggle. Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, a large part of the UK has a giggle.
Boris survives, added stories for the rubber chicken circuit, thus more money.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s down to the Ukrainians feeling gratitude for *early* and committed support. Ongoing since the 2014 invasion, as it was.
I recall before the invasion, when the U.K. and the US were being described as “inflaming lol the situation by sending arms. By some here.
Gratitude is all well and good. My point is that Z's strategy re: BJ goes BEYOND gratitude.
Speaking of Winston Churchill impersonators, between May 1940 and December 1941(also after) WSC spent a LOT of time both flattering AND cajoling USA in general, and FDR in particular.
And NOT out of simple desire to say "thank you"!
I’m not sure it does go beyond simple gratitude.
According to a Ukrainian former colleague, many in Ukraine are convinced that without British and US help before the war started, their country would have been overrun. Russia would have taken Kyiv etc.
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.
In my case it is not so much tribal as a visceral dislike of the man, Johnson.
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
Was not Waterloo, Belgium, named in honor to the great London train station?
Seems unlikely. “ The name of Waterloo was mentioned for the first time in 1102 designating a small hamlet at the limit of what is today known as the Sonian Forest, along a major road linking Brussels, Genappe and a coal mine to the south...”
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
It’s down to the Ukrainians feeling gratitude for *early* and committed support. Ongoing since the 2014 invasion, as it was.
I recall before the invasion, when the U.K. and the US were being described as “inflaming lol the situation by sending arms. By some here.
Gratitude is all well and good. My point is that Z's strategy re: BJ goes BEYOND gratitude.
Speaking of Winston Churchill impersonators, between May 1940 and December 1941(also after) WSC spent a LOT of time both flattering AND cajoling USA in general, and FDR in particular.
And NOT out of simple desire to say "thank you"!
I’m not sure it does go beyond simple gratitude.
According to a Ukrainian former colleague, many in Ukraine are convinced that without British and US help before the war started, their country would have been overrun. Russia would have taken Kyiv etc.
My guess is that President Z is a a LOT more canny. And demanding. Like WSC before him.
Was not Waterloo, Belgium, named in honor to the great London train station?
Seems unlikely. “ The name of Waterloo was mentioned for the first time in 1102 designating a small hamlet at the limit of what is today known as the Sonian Forest, along a major road linking Brussels, Genappe and a coal mine to the south...”
I think SeaShanty, like me, was not being serious.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
BoZo is going to be the face of the Ukraine campaign to join the EU...
He is going to tour EU capitals in a bus with a ridiculous slogan on the side.
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.
In my case it is not so much tribal as a visceral dislike of the man, Johnson.
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
He has, and yet still his nest seems to need more feathers.
On related note, when the 18th POTUS passed away in 1885, his old comrades and supporters thought it highly fitting (indeed self-evident) that he be laid to rest at that famous New York City landmark - Grant's Tomb.
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 don’t think we’re quite that much of mystery to ourselves. Perhaps you’d like to describe for us the positive measures of progress over the past fifteen years.
I have no great illumination to share on how to measure 'positive measures of progress'. Only that, as I suggest, you can't say that UK life is "bad" in some measurable way just by looking at economic growth or money.
Sometimes you read something like "people's disposable income it at the same level as it was in 2007" or something like that. As if in 2007 we were all miserable. lived on gravel and children went without shoes to school. Which is not the case.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
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.
In my case it is not so much tribal as a visceral dislike of the man, Johnson.
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
He has, and yet still his nest seems to need more feathers.
How do you know he is now virtuous and altruistic?
It's a miracle, he's cured of his sociopathy. Shall we make him PM again?
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.
In my case it is not so much tribal as a visceral dislike of the man, Johnson.
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
As they haven't needed to. However they did with Edward VIII to his brother who proved an outstanding King.
As we have a constitutional monarchy it should only be used in exceptional cases now, for example if the monarch committed a criminal offence or converted to Roman Catholicism
A huge amount of modern and capable equipment was pledged to Ukraine in the past week and a substantial group of countries have signed up to providing Ukraine with the support required to push Russia out of all of Ukraine.
To a certain extent the wrangling over Leopard tanks was a decent smokescreen to forestall any Russian claims of "E5ca1at10n!" at the large quantities of artillery and armoured vehicles that are being provided. Denmark has promised to provide all 19 of its Caesar 155mm artillery, the last two pieces of which were only recently delivered. We've moved a long way past countries rooting about in their warehouses to use Ukraine as a convenient place to dispose of obsolete kit.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
The U.K. monarchy has always been hereditary moderated by murder, treason and parliamentary “advice”.
Biggest gainer the left coalition but LREM doing OK too. Doesn’t look like the French - at least in the Pale of Calais and Charente - are in the mood for electing pro-Russian alt-right wingers just yet.
A huge amount of modern and capable equipment was pledged to Ukraine in the past week and a substantial group of countries have signed up to providing Ukraine with the support required to push Russia out of all of Ukraine.
To a certain extent the wrangling over Leopard tanks was a decent smokescreen to forestall any Russian claims of "E5ca1at10n!" at the large quantities of artillery and armoured vehicles that are being provided. Denmark has promised to provide all 19 of its Caesar 155mm artillery, the last two pieces of which were only recently delivered. We've moved a long way past countries rooting about in their warehouses to use Ukraine as a convenient place to dispose of obsolete kit.
Good point about the smokescreen. Perhaps they could engineer a row about whether the US should provide Ukraine with a fleet of nuclear submarines armed with ICBMs trained on Moscow, and regrettably conclude that this wouldn’t be a good idea to the annoyance if the Ukrainians, all the while shipping tanks and fighter jets by the hundred across the border.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
The U.K. monarchy has always been hereditary moderated by murder, treason and parliamentary “advice”.
Just because it’s been a while….
UK?! Even if you go on the union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, that's just one legal execution for treason, and two examples of parliamentary advice (three if you count the one combined with the aforesaud execution).
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
There was the Act of Settlement to choose the Hanoverian succession - I think they skipped about 50-odd people in the line of succession with that one.
I don't know why you think the 1936 Abdication doesn't count. Parliament wasn't happy with the marriage, and Parliament got its way and forced the King to abdicate. It was Parliament, or at least the Cabinet/Government, that determined that Eddy would no longer be King, the inheritance principle be damned.
The fundamental basis of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch is beneath the law, and the law is a creation of Parliament, and if the monarch does not keep to their side of the bargain then Parliament will find someone who will.
Consequently, we can be very confident that Andrew would be instructed to abdicate were he ever at any risk of becoming King, because Parliament would know that the public wouldn't tolerate him taking up the role.
Personally I still think that the monarchy is a very silly idea, but the inviolability of the inheritance principle has never been all that strong. Even arguably back to the 16th century, and the succession to Edward VI, it was consequential that his devise for the succession had not passed Parliament, unlike the succession settled on by Henry VIII.
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
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 wasn't actually discussing Ukraine in this case, but replying to WillG's comment that "The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is." I disagree with Will that Germany was wrong to be reluctant to intervene against Gaddafi.
Guessing this will be one of them ‘overwhelming’ polls that HYUFD thinks are entirely meaningless.
That's true, against the overwhelming support for Royalty in any form or kind - above all the inheritance principle. Which makes me, yet again, baffled that people think they can pick and choose between Royals.
Parliament can, only once senior politicians from Parliament had confirmed Charles as King at the accession council did he legally become King.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
Missing the point. How often do the pols use those powers? How many times since 1689? **** all. And even in 1689 they juts bumped along one down the hereditary chain.
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
The U.K. monarchy has always been hereditary moderated by murder, treason and parliamentary “advice”.
Just because it’s been a while….
UK?! Even if you go on the union of the Crowns, not Parliaments, that's just one legal execution for treason, and two examples of parliamentary advice (three if you count the one combined with the aforesaud execution).
Both the Scottish and English branches had quite a bit of head count reduction, followed by innovative in/out sourcing of the role.
Tim Loughton no idea about the difference between supply teachers and volunteers. He seems to consider a TA working with some of the most difficult SEND pupils as a voluntary job. Which says it all.
Biggest gainer the left coalition but LREM doing OK too. Doesn’t look like the French - at least in the Pale of Calais and Charente - are in the mood for electing pro-Russian alt-right wingers just yet.
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 wasn't actually discussing Ukraine in this case, but replying to WillG's comment that "The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is." I disagree with Will that Germany was wrong to be reluctant to intervene against Gaddafi.
So we should have stood by and allowed a genocide?
A huge amount of modern and capable equipment was pledged to Ukraine in the past week and a substantial group of countries have signed up to providing Ukraine with the support required to push Russia out of all of Ukraine.
To a certain extent the wrangling over Leopard tanks was a decent smokescreen to forestall any Russian claims of "E5ca1at10n!" at the large quantities of artillery and armoured vehicles that are being provided. Denmark has promised to provide all 19 of its Caesar 155mm artillery, the last two pieces of which were only recently delivered. We've moved a long way past countries rooting about in their warehouses to use Ukraine as a convenient place to dispose of obsolete kit.
Good point about the smokescreen. Perhaps they could engineer a row about whether the US should provide Ukraine with a fleet of nuclear submarines armed with ICBMs trained on Moscow, and regrettably conclude that this wouldn’t be a good idea to the annoyance if the Ukrainians, all the while shipping tanks and fighter jets by the hundred across the border.
Well, there's been a lot of wrangling over providing ATACMS (range 300km) for Ukraine, while at the same time there are much quieter suggestions that Ukraine may receive the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (range 150km) which would be a decent range increase on the current HIMARS/M270 ammunition. I don't think it's impossible that there's an element of theatre about this.
If we start hearing lots of suggestions about providing cruise missiles to Ukraine, then that might be a sign that Russia are being normalised to the idea of ATACMS not being so bad really.
Tim Loughton no idea about the difference between supply teachers and volunteers. He seems to consider a TA working with some of the most difficult SEND pupils as a voluntary job. Which says it all.
He’s an idiot. But he’s not totally without redeeming features.
I don’t know what they are exactly, tbf, but the DfE hate his guts and think he’s stupid and nasty so he must have something going for 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.
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 wasn't actually discussing Ukraine in this case, but replying to WillG's comment that "The German reaction to Gaddaffi's imminent genocide right on Europe's borders showed how weak their leadership on foreign affairs is." I disagree with Will that Germany was wrong to be reluctant to intervene against Gaddafi.
So we should have stood by and allowed a genocide?
Libya is sadly an example of where partial aerial intervention was probably the worst of all worlds. Proper boots on the ground might have done better.
But it’s also an example of how foreign policy is always a gamble. Sometimes we’re damned if we do, sometimes if we don’t. It now seems pretty clear that the West was wrong not to intervene in Syria early on. But at the time it didn’t seem that simple. Iraq was different: unprovoked escalation, which was always going to be a bad idea.
Tim Loughton no idea about the difference between supply teachers and volunteers. He seems to consider a TA working with some of the most difficult SEND pupils as a voluntary job. Which says it all.
He’s an idiot. But he’s not totally without redeeming features.
I don’t know what they are exactly, tbf, but the DfE hate his guts and think he’s stupid and nasty so he must have something going for him.
Yeah. I've always had time for him. The Party line seems to be this though. Teachers will strike. But nasty Unions will prevent any old parent or local busybody from waltzing in and covering (unpaid) what is an absolute piece of piss, not a proper job. And it'll be just peachy if only there weren't bastard Union Barons involved.
Biggest gainer the left coalition but LREM doing OK too. Doesn’t look like the French - at least in the Pale of Calais and Charente - are in the mood for electing pro-Russian alt-right wingers just yet.
Melenchon is also pro Putin like Le Pen
Yes he is, probably more idiotically so than even Corbyn. Less dangerous to European peace though because he will never get close to being president of the republic, whereas Le Pen might.
Though it incessantly feels like if and when Marine becomes President she’ll have moved so far to the centre she’ll be no more dangerous to European politics than Meloni (and rather less than Orban or indeed Duda and Morawiecki).
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
Again, I must have missed the bit where Tony Blair set up the “EU Party”, spent years on Question Time promoting further integration, and then led a major, albeit “unofficial”, pro-EU campaign during the referendum.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
Regarding current visit by Boris Johnson to Ukraine, thing I'm wondering is, what's in it for Ukraine?
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
One obvious benefit for Ukraine is that it's a signal to any Tories going wobbly on Ukraine, like potentially Sunak.
I expect that my vote at the next general election will be entirely decided by what happens or is happening in Ukraine. I'll be voting for the hawkiest hawk, and all other issues can take a back seat.
Biggest gainer the left coalition but LREM doing OK too. Doesn’t look like the French - at least in the Pale of Calais and Charente - are in the mood for electing pro-Russian alt-right wingers just yet.
Melenchon is also pro Putin like Le Pen
Yes he is, probably more idiotically so than even Corbyn. Less dangerous to European peace though because he will never get close to being president of the republic, whereas Le Pen might.
Though it incessantly feels like if and when Marine becomes President she’ll have moved so far to the centre she’ll be no more dangerous to European politics than Meloni (and rather less than Orban or indeed Duda and Morawiecki).
If Melenchon reached the runoff he has an outside chance of the Elysee. Meloni is economically right of Le Pen and also more pro Zelensky
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
Again, I must have missed the bit where Tony Blair set up the “EU Party”, spent years on Question Time promoting further integration, and then led a major, albeit “unofficial”, pro-EU campaign during the referendum.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
The Pro-EU party was Labour. Blair didn't have to appear on question time to promote his cause. He was the PM.
Farage was as much my ideological comrade in arms as Stalin was to Kier Starmer. Both are/would be ludicrous claims.
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
Again, I must have missed the bit where Tony Blair set up the “EU Party”, spent years on Question Time promoting further integration, and then led a major, albeit “unofficial”, pro-EU campaign during the referendum.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
The Pro-EU party was Labour. Blair didn't have to appear on question time to promote his cause. He was the PM.
Farage was as much my ideological comrade in arms as Stalin was to Kier Starmer. Both are/would be ludicrous claims.
You are in sad denial about the central role Farage, a man quite literally known as “Mr Brexit”.
You can’t just distance yourself from him, Richard. He was instrumental in bringing your pet project to life.
I realise I'm a bit late with this observation, but I've just started watching the latest series of The Crown (don't judge me, I'm knitting) and the overwhelming impression I get from it is how it humanises the Royals, and everyone else that it features. I know when it was first released there was a lot of controversy about large parts of it being made up, but as a piece of pro-monarchy fluff I think it works better with the controversy as cover, as otherwise it would be merely a transparent series of quasi-hagiographies.
I think people have said that Peter Morgan is a Republican? Well, with enemies like him the institution is safe for a while yet.
The term “culture war” once had meaning: the weaponisation of socio-cultural issues to foment division. But, like the words bigoted and phobic, it is being rendered impotent by how often it is now used to mean “opinion I disagree with”.
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
Again, I must have missed the bit where Tony Blair set up the “EU Party”, spent years on Question Time promoting further integration, and then led a major, albeit “unofficial”, pro-EU campaign during the referendum.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
The Pro-EU party was Labour. Blair didn't have to appear on question time to promote his cause. He was the PM.
Farage was as much my ideological comrade in arms as Stalin was to Kier Starmer. Both are/would be ludicrous claims.
You are in sad denial about the central role Farage, a man quite literally known as “Mr Brexit”.
You can’t just distance yourself from him, Richard. He was instrumental in bringing your pet project to life.
Must be why the Remain campaign tried to promote him as much as possible and the Leave campaign tried to marginalize him as much as possible. Because he was so helpful to the Leave cause.
Also, Brexit is not a project. It is removing oneself from a project. The EU is the project. And if you look at living standards and unemployment and poverty rates, it is doing a lot worse than the UK.
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.
So he was persona non grata with the official campaign. How then can they be held responsible for him? Tony Blair at least had the self awareness to know that if he campaigned for Remain it would drive more people to the Leave campaign. And yet I could claim he was the 'poster boy' for Remain as he made his views clear and would be as equally wrong as you are.
Again, I must have missed the bit where Tony Blair set up the “EU Party”, spent years on Question Time promoting further integration, and then led a major, albeit “unofficial”, pro-EU campaign during the referendum.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
The EU party was called "New Labour." Not only did he campaign relentlessly for the UK to be more pro-EU. He gave away billions of UK cash to Brussels to try to do it.
Comments
Bundeswehr has 312 Leopard 2 tanks; 99 require repairs, 1 is to be written off. From the 212, 19 could be sent to Ukraine
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1617192217029869568
Or rather, what is the strategy of President Zelenskyy, assuming it goes WAY beyond simple desire to thank the former Prime Minister?
Among possible motives and goals, one obvious one is using BJ's celebrity AND status as early-and-often public advocate for UKR, to help UKR's cause in Europe and beyond at this critical juncture.
Whatever my feelings about Boris Johnson, am more than willing to defer to President Z's judgement right now.
We are a constitutional not an absolute monarchy
I recall before the invasion, when the U.K. and the US were being described as “inflaming lol the situation by sending arms. By some here.
However, Wellington over-ruled him. For his own reasons.
Perhaps you’d like to describe for us the positive measures of progress over the past fifteen years.
However UKIP would have got 15 to 20% at the next general election, mainly at Tory expense
Boris survives - good PR
Zelenskyy - just good PR
Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, he’s a martyr hero.
Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Carrie is raking the insurance in.
Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, Putin has a giggle.
Boris gets killed by a Russian missile, a large part of the UK has a giggle.
Boris survives, added stories for the rubber chicken circuit, thus more money.
Everyone’s a winner.
Speaking of Winston Churchill impersonators, between May 1940 and December 1941(also after) WSC spent a LOT of time both flattering AND cajoling USA in general, and FDR in particular.
And NOT out of simple desire to say "thank you"!
I do not believe leopards change their spots. Johnson has spent his entire life feathering his own nest. Why should this time be any different?
I count myself among his detractors, But I would be decidedly unamused.
And most of his detractors recognise that his Ukraine stance, whatever his motives, deserves credit.
According to a Ukrainian former colleague, many in Ukraine are convinced that without British and US help before the war started, their country would have been overrun. Russia would have taken Kyiv etc.
Perhaps?
“ The name of Waterloo was mentioned for the first time in 1102 designating a small hamlet at the limit of what is today known as the Sonian Forest, along a major road linking Brussels, Genappe and a coal mine to the south...”
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1617223293710262275
American infantry fighting vehicles M2 Bradley are spotted in Poland today
Polish railway company PKP Polskie Linie Kolejowe transports Bradleys toward the Ukrainian border.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1617250287261024262
Who should offended by this?
He is going to tour EU capitals in a bus with a ridiculous slogan on the side.
In other really stupid ideas...
@christopherhope: This is worth a read for anyone who wants to understand why the Red Wall voted Conservative.
If @RishiSunak listens… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617273268007731200
For reasons personal, professional and political (foreign & domestic).
Also, this may not be for Ukraine. Could be for US troops in Poland.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-12?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=auto_share&r=1tgexa
Sometimes you read something like "people's disposable income it at the same level as it was in 2007" or something like that. As if in 2007 we were all miserable. lived on gravel and children went without shoes to school. Which is not the case.
At the sam… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1617281122609795072
Edward Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (wannabe Mr Simpson) doesn't count because they stuck to the hereditary principle.
https://inews.co.uk/news/was-lied-boris-johnson-why-much-uk-fishing-still-waiting-brexit-boost-2096883?ito=twitter_share_article-top https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1617046355138220032/photo/1
It's a miracle, he's cured of his sociopathy. Shall we make him PM again?
As we have a constitutional monarchy it should only be used in exceptional cases now, for example if the monarch committed a criminal offence or converted to Roman Catholicism
https://bristolha.wordpress.com/2021/08/05/a-sex-tour-of-medieval-bristol/
To a certain extent the wrangling over Leopard tanks was a decent smokescreen to forestall any Russian claims of "E5ca1at10n!" at the large quantities of artillery and armoured vehicles that are being provided. Denmark has promised to provide all 19 of its Caesar 155mm artillery, the last two pieces of which were only recently delivered. We've moved a long way past countries rooting about in their warehouses to use Ukraine as a convenient place to dispose of obsolete kit.
Just because it’s been a while….
https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/37318718/2020KavanaghHMphil.pdfhttps://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/37318718/2020KavanaghHMphil.pdfhttps://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/37318718/2020KavanaghHMphil.pdf
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1617278880783400960?s=46&t=dU0J4twSLIELLK_OJxd-Ew
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/1617276531591577600?s=46&t=dU0J4twSLIELLK_OJxd-Ew
Biggest gainer the left coalition but LREM doing OK too. Doesn’t look like the French - at least in the Pale of Calais and Charente - are in the mood for electing pro-Russian alt-right wingers just yet.
I don't know why you think the 1936 Abdication doesn't count. Parliament wasn't happy with the marriage, and Parliament got its way and forced the King to abdicate. It was Parliament, or at least the Cabinet/Government, that determined that Eddy would no longer be King, the inheritance principle be damned.
The fundamental basis of a constitutional monarchy is that the monarch is beneath the law, and the law is a creation of Parliament, and if the monarch does not keep to their side of the bargain then Parliament will find someone who will.
Consequently, we can be very confident that Andrew would be instructed to abdicate were he ever at any risk of becoming King, because Parliament would know that the public wouldn't tolerate him taking up the role.
Personally I still think that the monarchy is a very silly idea, but the inviolability of the inheritance principle has never been all that strong. Even arguably back to the 16th century, and the succession to Edward VI, it was consequential that his devise for the succession had not passed Parliament, unlike the succession settled on by Henry VIII.
He seems to consider a TA working with some of the most difficult SEND pupils as a voluntary job.
Which says it all.
If we start hearing lots of suggestions about providing cruise missiles to Ukraine, then that might be a sign that Russia are being normalised to the idea of ATACMS not being so bad really.
I don’t know what they are exactly, tbf, but the DfE hate his guts and think he’s stupid and nasty so he must have something going for him.
But it’s also an example of how foreign policy is always a gamble. Sometimes we’re damned if we do, sometimes if we don’t. It now seems pretty clear that the West was wrong not to intervene in Syria early on. But at the time it didn’t seem that simple. Iraq was different: unprovoked escalation, which was always going to be a bad idea.
The Party line seems to be this though.
Teachers will strike. But nasty Unions will prevent any old parent or local busybody from waltzing in and covering (unpaid) what is an absolute piece of piss, not a proper job.
And it'll be just peachy if only there weren't bastard Union Barons involved.
Though it incessantly feels like if and when Marine becomes President she’ll have moved so far to the centre she’ll be no more dangerous to European politics than Meloni (and rather less than Orban or indeed Duda and Morawiecki).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/22/lockdown-sex-party-newcastle-cathedral-investigation-vatican/
I thought nowt was happening.
We know you don’t like Farage, and have profound disagreements with him, but he is your ideological comrade-in-arms nonetheless.
I expect that my vote at the next general election will be entirely decided by what happens or is happening in Ukraine. I'll be voting for the hawkiest hawk, and all other issues can take a back seat.
No suggestion the Bishop was involved, seems to have occurred under the late Dean
Farage was as much my ideological comrade in arms as Stalin was to Kier Starmer. Both are/would be ludicrous claims.
You can’t just distance yourself from him, Richard. He was instrumental in bringing your pet project to life.
I think people have said that Peter Morgan is a Republican? Well, with enemies like him the institution is safe for a while yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/21/stoking-a-culture-war-no-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-about-balancing-conflicting-rights
Also, Brexit is not a project. It is removing oneself from a project. The EU is the project. And if you look at living standards and unemployment and poverty rates, it is doing a lot worse than the UK.