Words that should strike terror into the hearts of all UK politicians as they wonder what Black Swan is queued up in your absence...
Like all sensible readers of PB I am doing an emergency audit of stocking levels in my fall out shelter.
Very wise. I cannot stay long as I am at the checkout in Tesco having purchased all tinned goods in the food aisle. They should make bigger trolleys...
Toilet rolls, don't forget the toilet rolls!
Oh cr*p!
Shhhhh. Look at it another way. This is a chance for us to have a party on here. It can be open Mike night.
If Sunak can't put an end to the sleaze, restoring the lying clown certainly won't.
That's as maybe, but a 9% chance of BoJo coming back before the GE depends on the headless chickens of the Tory party rather than the general public.
Foreigners interested in UK politics are understandably baffled by 'the year of the three Prime Ministers'. It makes sense only when you understand the peculiar method by which the Tory Party selects its leader and therefore our PM. You also have to understand the composition of the current Party membership, best achieved by viewing its serried ranks at the Annual Party Conference.
The Party would be insane to remove Sunak and replace him with Johnson, but it may just be insane enough.
9% ?
Yes, 9% insane is about right
I don't know really. Johnson clearly wants to come back, but backed off from doing so when Truss imploded. Why?
Reported at the time that there were enough Tory MPs who indicated that they simply wouldn't accept it to make it a non-runner. Couple that with some of his protégés clearly wanting a go at the top job themselves - such as Braverman - and I don't see a way back for Johnson.
However, if I'm wrong, then it's also probably a way in which we get to an early election, so a bet on a 2023 election, or Starmer as PM at the end of the year, might be interesting bets that cover this scenario and a few others.
Words that should strike terror into the hearts of all UK politicians as they wonder what Black Swan is queued up in your absence...
Like all sensible readers of PB I am doing an emergency audit of stocking levels in my fall out shelter.
Very wise. I cannot stay long as I am at the checkout in Tesco having purchased all tinned goods in the food aisle. They should make bigger trolleys...
Toilet rolls, don't forget the toilet rolls!
Oh cr*p!
Shhhhh. Look at it another way. This is a chance for us to have a party on here. It can be open Mike night.
Boris; Popular - whatever his faults he has a way to just get the tone right and win votes Smart - clearly not his attire, but he does have a good depth of knowledge, and that's not to be underestimated Lies- nobody should trust him Dodgy - it's far from clear that he hasn't engaged in some dubious dealings
Truss Economics - right policy, but its not a cut out from a cereal box Insane - No more needs to be said Insane - really
IDS Better than Truss - but everyone is Less dodgy than Boris - everyone is too Enthusiatic - he does this well, although it's an odd solo performance
May Tall - this might help with Macron and Putin Better than all the above - tick Made one excellent speech - tick
If Sunak can't put an end to the sleaze, restoring the lying clown certainly won't.
That's as maybe, but a 9% chance of BoJo coming back before the GE depends on the headless chickens of the Tory party rather than the general public.
Foreigners interested in UK politics are understandably baffled by 'the year of the three Prime Ministers'. It makes sense only when you understand the peculiar method by which the Tory Party selects its leader and therefore our PM. You also have to understand the composition of the current Party membership, best achieved by viewing its serried ranks at the Annual Party Conference.
The Party would be insane to remove Sunak and replace him with Johnson, but it may just be insane enough.
9% ?
Yes, 9% insane is about right
I don't know really. Johnson clearly wants to come back, but backed off from doing so when Truss imploded. Why?
Reported at the time that there were enough Tory MPs who indicated that they simply wouldn't accept it to make it a non-runner. Couple that with some of his protégés clearly wanting a go at the top job themselves - such as Braverman - and I don't see a way back for Johnson.
However, if I'm wrong, then it's also probably a way in which we get to an early election, so a bet on a 2023 election, or Starmer as PM at the end of the year, might be interesting bets that cover this scenario and a few others.
The Tories deserve extinction if they think of bringing back Truss
On the contrary. She is the best and brightest future for her party and her country. Soon we will see how we have misunderestimated her. Indeed I don’t see a tilt at the White House as being out of the question. If anyone can persuade them to change their constitution, she can.
NOTE: Tomorrow I have an operation on my spine at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital and will not be posting on PB for a few days. TSE is in charge of the site.
Best wishes Mike.
There's always the bed baths to look forward to.
Last time I had surgery the anesthesiologist gave me choice of gas or boat paddle... It was an ether/oar decision.
The second was no laughing matter.
My anaesthetist told me I only needed a local anaesthetic. I reported him to the GMC - frankly it doesn’t matter where the anaesthetic comes from. I welcome anaesthesia from all over the world.
With the euro as their currency and a double helping of freedom of movement - FOM all the way from Kiev to Calais, where a statue to the great Churchillian and former mayor of London should be installed, visible in fine weather from the Kent coast.
Maybe he could run for President after Zelensky on a platform of taking them out again?
"According to Chapter V, Article 103 of the Constitution, to be elected president a candidate must be a Ukrainian citizen who has attained the age of 35, has the right to vote, and has resided in the country for the past 10 years[27] and has full command of the Ukrainian state language."
I'm sure the Ukrainians would grant Johnson citizenship, and I think he's relatively gifted with languages, but the other qualifications might be a stretch. We all know Johnson has the mental age of a randy teenager.
NOTE: Tomorrow I have an operation on my spine at the Luton & Dunstable Hospital and will not be posting on PB for a few days. TSE is in charge of the site.
Best wishes Mike.
There's always the bed baths to look forward to.
Last time I had surgery the anesthesiologist gave me choice of gas or boat paddle... It was an ether/oar decision.
The second was no laughing matter.
My anaesthetist told me I only needed a local anaesthetic. I reported him to the GMC - frankly it doesn’t matter where the anaesthetic comes from. I welcome anaesthesia from all over the world.
For a minute, I thought I was reading a LuckyGuy post
The Tories deserve extinction if they think of bringing back Truss
On the contrary. She is the best and brightest future for her party and her country. Soon we will see how we have misunderestimated her. Indeed I don’t see a tilt at the White House as being out of the question. If anyone can persuade them to change their constitution, she can.
President of the US.
Secretary General of the UN.
Chairwoman of Paris St Germain Football Club.
Queen of the known universe is too lowly a calling.
When all this mess is over, I hope Ukraine is in a position where they can meet the AQ and join the EU, if they democratically decide to do so.
Do you disagree?
That's not what Johnson said, though. He said Ukraine should join the EU. Last year, he said Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative body to the EU. Also last year, Putin said he had nothing against Ukraine joining the EU. Funny old world. What's next? Will Putin complete the square and say Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative to the EU?
What is Johnson playing at? For that matter, what has Kolomoisky been playing at recently? I don't know which oligarchs in Ukraine Johnson is keenest on, but there will be an answer to that question. If some of the oligarchs in Ukraine are getting their collars felt right now, who knows, maybe some soon will in London too. (About f***ing time.) If I were an oligarch with large investments in Ukraine, living in London at the moment and scared of being arrested or having assets in Britain frozen, I'd be wanting to make a nice big donation to a political party.
Gary Neville @GNev2 I liked a tweet relating to the Mason Greenwood news this afternoon from Nazir Afzal. ( the former director of public prosecutions ). This like is being misinterpreted. It was a clumsy like as I obviously condemn any violence against women.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Words that should strike terror into the hearts of all UK politicians as they wonder what Black Swan is queued up in your absence...
Like all sensible readers of PB I am doing an emergency audit of stocking levels in my fall out shelter.
Very wise. I cannot stay long as I am at the checkout in Tesco having purchased all tinned goods in the food aisle. They should make bigger trolleys...
Toilet rolls, don't forget the toilet rolls!
Oh cr*p!
Shhhhh. Look at it another way. This is a chance for us to have a party on here. It can be open Mike night.
Like every day on PB?
After the first dozen posts, it does not matter what the header is
The question is of course whether there is any alternative Conservative MP who, were they to become leader, would transform the Party's fortunes and erode the 17-20% swings to Labour in England.
I don't see one and there's no polling evidence to suggest anyone else would make a difference.
Sunak therefore stays and we'll see if the Conservative Parliamentary Party absorbs the valuable lesson if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately.
As for who follows Sunak, in the event of a sizeable defeat, say reducing the Parliamentary Party to 120-140 seats, some of the leading possibles will have lost their seats. Barclay, Badenoch and Braverman are safe from even the most extreme defeat so the three"B"s will all have a chance to appeal to the rump.
It's probably a 10-15 year project to take the party back to power in all honesty - do any of them want to be LOTO for that long? One possibility is Barclay begins the journey back and at some point Badenoch and Braverman will contest the leadership.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
How about the Commonwealth. Would that be in Britain's strategic interests?
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
How about the Commonwealth. Would that be in Britain's strategic interests?
Yes.
It would be in Britain’s interests for Ukraine to:
join the Commonwealth join the wider European community proposed by Macron Re-confirm security guarantees from Western powers (but not full NATO membership).
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
When all this mess is over, I hope Ukraine is in a position where they can meet the AQ and join the EU, if they democratically decide to do so.
Do you disagree?
That's not what Johnson said, though. He said Ukraine should join the EU. Last year, he said Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative body to the EU. Also last year, Putin said he had nothing against Ukraine joining the EU. Funny old world. What's next? Will Putin complete the square and say Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative to the EU?
What is Johnson playing at? For that matter, what has Kolomoisky been playing at recently? I don't know which oligarchs in Ukraine Johnson is keenest on, but there will be an answer to that question. If some of the oligarchs in Ukraine are getting their collars felt right now, who knows, maybe some soon will in London too. (About f***ing time.) If I were an oligarch with large investments in Ukraine, living in London at the moment and scared of being arrested or having assets in Britain frozen, I'd be wanting to make a nice big donation to a political party.
It is unusual for a working peer to be called as an expert witness, and it was not clear whether Lord Falconer was there as a KC, a previous minister or a current Labour peer. He was apparently invited because he wrote a Twitter thread…..
What was clear throughout Charlie Falconer’s testimony was that he was describing a system of law that simply does not exist…
Going beyond misrepresenting the law, Lord Falconer stated that “most people” accept that the Scottish GRR Bill is a sensible change. He offered no evidence, and he is simply wrong about this.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
The Tories deserve extinction if they think of bringing back Truss
On the contrary. She is the best and brightest future for her party and her country. Soon we will see how we have misunderestimated her. Indeed I don’t see a tilt at the White House as being out of the question. If anyone can persuade them to change their constitution, she can.
President of the US.
Secretary General of the UN.
Chairwoman of Paris St Germain Football Club.
Queen of the known universe is too lowly a calling.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
Ermm long time we need to wipe out russia as an idea, it will not reform to a state that is confident when staying within its boundaries and will always claim other states belong to them.
I am also, I think, against “mandatory race wage gap reporting”.
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks. This stuff is pernicious.
I'm never quite sure what category to put our son under, as he's half Turkish. Usually we opt for 'white other' if that's available. Goodness knows why that should matter.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
Ermm long time we need to wipe out russia as an idea, it will not reform to a state that is confident when staying within its boundaries and will always claim other states belong to them.
By russia I mean the idea of a russian empire btw not the country itself
I am also, I think, against “mandatory race wage gap reporting”.
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks. This stuff is pernicious.
I'm never quite sure what category to put our son under, as he's half Turkish. Usually we opt for 'white other' if that's available. Goodness knows why that should matter.
When I was younger I used to go for "any other white background" but now I just tick "white British" because I can't be arsed.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Neverthless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
I am also, I think, against “mandatory race wage gap reporting”.
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks. This stuff is pernicious.
I'm never quite sure what category to put our son under, as he's half Turkish. Usually we opt for 'white other' if that's available. Goodness knows why that should matter.
Strictly speaking I am not 100% white myself. In certain societies I would be considered mixed race.
There is nobody that can erode a 17 point lead they say.
Keir Starmer did.
Did he? Or did the Johnson government collapse as partygate played out and the public woke up to how venal and dishonest Johnson was, combined with an economic shock not seen these last 15 years. Starmer has done a good job making Labour electable, but just as you insist Johnson’s 2019 win was mainly down to Corbyn, Starmers current lead is mainly down to the economic situation we are in after 13 years of Tory rule.
I am also, I think, against “mandatory race wage gap reporting”.
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks. This stuff is pernicious.
I'm never quite sure what category to put our son under, as he's half Turkish. Usually we opt for 'white other' if that's available. Goodness knows why that should matter.
Strictly speaking I am not 100% white myself. In certain societies I would be considered mixed race.
It is nobody’s business but my own.
There are few truebloods left in the world and most of them have no idea they are
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
The gaps in my knowledge about Russia are vast but the impression I get from everyone else both here and in the news generally is that there is no alternative to a permanent defence against Russia until the country itself has undergone fundamental reform and has become a proper functioning democracy - not just in terms of basic elections but the independence of all the other institutions and estates that go to make a functioning democracy.
Which is perhaps a long winded way of saying that the issue, as far as needing a long term defence against Russia is concerned, is out of our hands. It is not we who have to change but Russia. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
It would have been great if the 1991-2000-something period had turned out differently, but Russia has made its choice now. Absent a major revolution it's not going to do anything other than back China now.
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
It would have been great if the 1991-2000-something period had turned out differently, but Russia has made its choice now. Absent a major revolution it's not going to do anything other than back China now.
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
This doesn’t make sense to me. We must hope and plan to seduce Russia toward the West, while of course ensuring we retain our defences if we cannot.
Labour’s proposal to favour “black owned businesses” is highly regrettable.
In my experience it simply creates a special class of grifters, with no actual impact on the structural inequality of black people.
The Liberal Democrats (remember them?) ought to be vocally against this.
What is a “black-owned business”? Beyond a certain size, a company will have managers and shareholders of varying ethnicities.
If it’s sole traders, we’ll they’re not going to be awarded government contracts in any event.
I imagine that's the concern about grifters, because essentially the challenge will be to create a corporate structure that satisfies the eligibility requirements, and then fulfill the contracts by subcontracting.
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
It would have been great if the 1991-2000-something period had turned out differently, but Russia has made its choice now. Absent a major revolution it's not going to do anything other than back China now.
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
This doesn’t make sense to me. We must hope and plan to seduce Russia toward the West, while of course ensuring we retain our defences if we cannot.
I think you're suffering a delusion about the extent of our influence on internal Russian politics, particularly while it's dominated by a gangster ruling class with delusions of imperial grandeur.
There's nothing that we can offer them, that they are interested in, except for abandoning our own principles on democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. There's no way we can seduce them in to becoming a trustworthy partner.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Boris will say anything for a bit of media. It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
Why do you say that? I would think that Ukraine in NATO would be a big strategic win for Britain. It's likely that we'd then feel able to leave the defence of the Russian land border to them and Poland, freeing up British forces to act as an adjunct to the US in the Pacific.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Long term we actually don’t want a permanent defence against Russia, but rather to cajole Russia closer to the West. Ukrainian NATO membership would be standing sore.
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
It's a mistake to think that we can influence Russia in such a way. We should be ready to respond positively to positive action from them, but thinking that we can cajole them in such a way has left us open to being manipulated by them.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
I accept all that but let’s just understand the realpolitik of NATO membership, and the accompanying commitments.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
It would have been great if the 1991-2000-something period had turned out differently, but Russia has made its choice now. Absent a major revolution it's not going to do anything other than back China now.
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
This doesn’t make sense to me. We must hope and plan to seduce Russia toward the West, while of course ensuring we retain our defences if we cannot.
I think you're suffering a delusion about the extent of our influence on internal Russian politics, particularly while it's dominated by a gangster ruling class with delusions of imperial grandeur.
There's nothing that we can offer them, that they are interested in, except for abandoning our own principles on democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. There's no way we can seduce them in to becoming a trustworthy partner.
I’m under no illusions about Russia.
However you just don’t give up geopolitical strategy because things look tough.
Nixon went to China. It is not pre-ordained that Russia will remain a gangster state, nor that the West can never hope to partner effectively with it.
The Russian people - like people everywhere - want freedom and prosperity. Start there.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
Pardon my obsession but for the greatest experience without drugs listen to the piano concertos of Sergei Bortkiewicz and Viktor Kosenko. The score of the latter is unbelievable - it needs the formidable talent of Yuja Wang.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Well, when you put it like that I'm surprised he did not rise to high office.
A former Labour MP accused of expenses fraud has been described as “thoroughly inadequate”, “thoroughly rotten” and “stuffing the parliamentary payroll with mates and cronies” who did no relevant work.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
No. I don’t accept this.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
I object to it as well, where the government strip people of their citizenship, is basically banishment and exile.
I think that Begum will end up being regarded as a victim of grooming, and the UK government will end up apologising to her and probably paying her a lot of compensation. I think the zeitgeist has changed and people like Patel and Braverman are not seeing the situation, they are failing to move with the times.
What is questionable is how easy it is to get British citizenship. A taxi driver once told me that he had 5 citizenships. That is a stupid state of affairs, it devalues the whole purpose of citizenship.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Somebody was saying earlier Britain needed less false modesty. Which is bullshit, because arrogance and bragging by mediocrities is a big problem in this country.
What we need is a much bigger willingness to 'fess up to mistakes.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
The difficulty with this whole affair is a lot of time is spent on re-arguing why the government should not have the right to do this sort of thing, which as the thread shows many people here would agree with, so the argument is about whether the legal safeguards preventing arbitrary and unreasonable uses of the power are in place or not, but since we cannot know all the facts of individual cases that we hear about we cannot really assess the strength of those safeguards, since what looks unilateral and unreasonable might not be. Didn't the Supreme Court recently wrap the knuckles of a lower court for trying to substitute its own judgement for a Minister's based on only part of the evidence? Of course, a case focused on whether all relevant factors were considered is on stronger ground, and it does feel media wise at least that the ground has shifted more sympathetically in the Begum case.
Well, when you put it like that I'm surprised he did not rise to high office.
A former Labour MP accused of expenses fraud has been described as “thoroughly inadequate”, “thoroughly rotten” and “stuffing the parliamentary payroll with mates and cronies” who did no relevant work.
I am also, I think, against “mandatory race wage gap reporting”.
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks. This stuff is pernicious.
I'm never quite sure what category to put our son under, as he's half Turkish. Usually we opt for 'white other' if that's available. Goodness knows why that should matter.
It's not as though people are necessarily consistent anyway. Someone born to parents who came over from Morocco, say, might well put a different ethnicity than their parents even. I say might well, since I've known it happen.
Thanks. I guess the crux of this matter is what "more support" actually means.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Is it London bubble stuff? Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Nevertheless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
As said, these are ideas and recommendations and Starmer will want nothing that will push wavering ex-Conservatives back into the blue camp.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
Personally I do not believe that the Government should have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
I think where there is a clear other citizenship (say someone from NZ who also took U.K. citizenship, only to then join a terrorist group fighting against the U.K.) I have no issue with this, assuming there are legal reasons (usually crimes/treason etc). Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
100% spot on.
No - removal of citizenship is a hack. What we actually need is a usable treason statute. Fight for the enemies of the country - get life in prison.
The UK has a special visa for top tech talent, but the body that adminsters the visa has been defunded. And the body that's replacing it has said it won't adminster the visa. Good work everyone. https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
Comments
Neither she nor Boris have the MPs votes needed to remove Sunak by VONC before the next election
Reported at the time that there were enough Tory MPs who indicated that they simply wouldn't accept it to make it a non-runner. Couple that with some of his protégés clearly wanting a go at the top job themselves - such as Braverman - and I don't see a way back for Johnson.
However, if I'm wrong, then it's also probably a way in which we get to an early election, so a bet on a 2023 election, or Starmer as PM at the end of the year, might be interesting bets that cover this scenario and a few others.
Boris;
Popular - whatever his faults he has a way to just get the tone right and win votes
Smart - clearly not his attire, but he does have a good depth of knowledge, and that's not to be underestimated
Lies- nobody should trust him
Dodgy - it's far from clear that he hasn't engaged in some dubious dealings
Truss
Economics - right policy, but its not a cut out from a cereal box
Insane - No more needs to be said
Insane - really
IDS
Better than Truss - but everyone is
Less dodgy than Boris - everyone is too
Enthusiatic - he does this well, although it's an odd solo performance
May
Tall - this might help with Macron and Putin
Better than all the above - tick
Made one excellent speech - tick
Cameron
Wilderness years - tick
MP - alas no
Boris Johnson says Ukraine should join the EU 🫠
How utterly pathetic this toad is
Do you disagree? If not, why is he a pathetic toad?
Think I need the toilet..
The Ulez works. It’s Khan’s flagship policy and the extension will happen. Londoners need cleaner air.
Is always repeating itself.
I'm sure the Ukrainians would grant Johnson citizenship, and I think he's relatively gifted with languages, but the other qualifications might be a stretch. We all know Johnson has the mental age of a randy teenager.
Best wishes for tomorrow @MikeSmithson
Secretary General of the UN.
Chairwoman of Paris St Germain Football Club.
Queen of the known universe is too lowly a calling.
Last year, he said Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative body to the EU.
Also last year, Putin said he had nothing against Ukraine joining the EU.
Funny old world.
What's next? Will Putin complete the square and say Ukraine should join Britain in an alternative to the EU?
What is Johnson playing at?
For that matter, what has Kolomoisky been playing at recently?
I don't know which oligarchs in Ukraine Johnson is keenest on, but there will be an answer to that question.
If some of the oligarchs in Ukraine are getting their collars felt right now, who knows, maybe some soon will in London too. (About f***ing time.) If I were an oligarch with large investments in Ukraine, living in London at the moment and scared of being arrested or having assets in Britain frozen, I'd be wanting to make a nice big donation to a political party.
https://twitter.com/GNev2/status/1621199334044798978
Gary Neville
@GNev2
I liked a tweet relating to the Mason Greenwood news this afternoon from Nazir Afzal. ( the former director of public prosecutions ). This like is being misinterpreted. It was a clumsy like as I obviously condemn any violence against women.
It is probably in Britain’s best strategic interests at this juncture for Ukraine not to join NATO, nor the EU.
After the first dozen posts, it does not matter what the header is
https://twitter.com/SlavaUk30722777/status/1621069794387832834
The question is of course whether there is any alternative Conservative MP who, were they to become leader, would transform the Party's fortunes and erode the 17-20% swings to Labour in England.
I don't see one and there's no polling evidence to suggest anyone else would make a difference.
Sunak therefore stays and we'll see if the Conservative Parliamentary Party absorbs the valuable lesson if you don't hang together you'll all hang separately.
As for who follows Sunak, in the event of a sizeable defeat, say reducing the Parliamentary Party to 120-140 seats, some of the leading possibles will have lost their seats. Barclay, Badenoch and Braverman are safe from even the most extreme defeat so the three"B"s will all have a chance to appeal to the rump.
It's probably a 10-15 year project to take the party back to power in all honesty - do any of them want to be LOTO for that long? One possibility is Barclay begins the journey back and at some point Badenoch and Braverman will contest the leadership.
In my experience it simply creates a special class of grifters, with no actual impact on the structural inequality of black people.
The Liberal Democrats (remember them?) ought to be vocally against this.
On EU membership, a Ukraine in the EU is likely to receive more EU funding for reconstruction and economic development. Even with Brexit barriers to trade that creates a larger market for potential British trade.
Wavering Tories who are tempted by this should take note of the signs of what's coming.
It would be in Britain’s interests for Ukraine to:
join the Commonwealth
join the wider European community proposed by Macron
Re-confirm security guarantees from Western powers (but not full NATO membership).
Britain should want to bring flesh and meaning to Macron’s proposed partnership, and Ukraine’s membership brings that. At present it is too corrupt and poor for full membership anyway.
Keir Starmer did.
What was clear throughout Charlie Falconer’s testimony was that he was describing a system of law that simply does not exist…
Going beyond misrepresenting the law, Lord Falconer stated that “most people” accept that the Scottish GRR Bill is a sensible change. He offered no evidence, and he is simply wrong about this.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/charlie-falconers-testimony/
I don’t want businesses marking down what race I am, nor that of my colleagues thanks.
This stuff is pernicious.
We have to wait until they are interested in a positive relationship with us, and that can't happen if we are still conceding that countries that border Russia don't have full sovereign independence from Russia. That was a principle supposedly established in 1648, but it's still a lesson Russia needs to learn.
Also, although I am not one, I wish the Liberal Democrats stood for the principles you rightly assert that they should do.
That concludes my Ted Talk.
Also, we must concede that the key geopolitical competition is between the West and China. I actually think Biden is going too far with his tech blocking policies, but I so no reason to keep pushing Russia ever closer into Chinese arms.
I accept the above doesn’t naturally apply to today’s Russia, but I am taking post-war.
Regardless, this is London bubble stuff.
Maybe. It won’t deter me at present for voting left, and it remains a proposal only at this stage.
Neverthless, it saps confidence in Labour’s ability to look beyond its own client vote. Indeed I would argue that Labour’s biggest risk is not capture by unions but capture by selfish identity groups.
In certain societies I would be considered mixed race.
It is nobody’s business but my own.
You'd have thought this would be clear to more than just Blair, who is as smart on this sort of stuff as ever.
Starmer has done a good job making Labour electable, but just as you insist Johnson’s 2019 win was mainly down to Corbyn, Starmers current lead is mainly down to the economic situation we are in after 13 years of Tory rule.
Which is perhaps a long winded way of saying that the issue, as far as needing a long term defence against Russia is concerned, is out of our hands. It is not we who have to change but Russia. And I don't see that happening any time soon.
It was somewhat of a surprise - they had a whole event leading up to his prediction only for his death to be announced.
No doubt Leon will say this foretells nuclear disaster....
We need to accept and adjust to this reality. The strategic opportunity for the West is in helping India to the same realisation, and having them as a reliable ally.
Apparently there are only 20-odd living there.
If it’s sole traders, we’ll they’re not going to be awarded government contracts in any event.
We must hope and plan to seduce Russia toward the West, while of course ensuring we retain our defences if we cannot.
Pshaw, there are thousands in Berlin, I've even seen one much to my inebriated surprise.
There's nothing that we can offer them, that they are interested in, except for abandoning our own principles on democracy, sovereignty and the rule of law. There's no way we can seduce them in to becoming a trustworthy partner.
https://twitter.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1621171021230362624
https://www.kingsleynapley.co.uk/insights/blogs/immigration-law-blog/what-tech-nations-closure-means-for-the-global-talent-visa-and-tech-migration
However you just don’t give up geopolitical strategy because things look tough.
Nixon went to China.
It is not pre-ordained that Russia will remain a gangster state, nor that the West can never hope to partner effectively with it.
The Russian people - like people everywhere - want freedom and prosperity. Start there.
I'm thinking about the notion a Government should not have the right to revoke my citizenship. Presumably this is a response to the high profile cases of individuals going to the Middle East and joining extreme radical Islamic groups to the extent of even fighting British armed forces and then trying to get back into the UK.
Are there or should there be any circumstances in which a Government should have the right to revoke citizenship? I can understand why some would argue the right should exist but presumably we would also accept there should be strong legal safeguards to prevent a future Government unilaterally revoking the citizenship of anyone it doesn't like and throwing them out the country.
@MaxPB, if you can, send me that report.
I’m aware this power has existed in some form for quite a while, but I abhor it.
Where no other citizenship exists, no. The Begum case is the latter, and I would like her U.K. citizenship back, and her put on trial, albeit with compassion, as she is clearly a victim of grooming.
A citizenship is a citizenship. There should be no second class of citizenship.
Begum should be tried in the UK. If she’s been groomed or whatever, that’s a reason for some sort of clemency. But citizenship should be sacrosanct.
I bought the car I sold today two years and three months ago for £5,900.
I sold it today after 35,000 miles for £5,000.
That's a depreciation of 2.8p per mile. I aim for 10 as a good baseline.
My previous car in which I did 108,000 miles and drove it into the ground was good, but that was better.
Wasn't even that exciting a car!
Second hand car market at the moment is completely mad.
It's more an entrenched ideological mindset that any penny saved anywhere at all is automatically a "good thing".
A former Labour MP accused of expenses fraud has been described as “thoroughly inadequate”, “thoroughly rotten” and “stuffing the parliamentary payroll with mates and cronies” who did no relevant work.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/02/jared-o-mara-thoroughly-rotten-prosecutor-in-trial-says
I think that Begum will end up being regarded as a victim of grooming, and the UK government will end up apologising to her and probably paying her a lot of compensation. I think the zeitgeist has changed and people like Patel and Braverman are not seeing the situation, they are failing to move with the times.
What is questionable is how easy it is to get British citizenship. A taxi driver once told me that he had 5 citizenships. That is a stupid state of affairs, it devalues the whole purpose of citizenship.
What we need is a much bigger willingness to 'fess up to mistakes.
Here's an example.
Energy firms asked to suspend prepayment meter installs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64504609
Is Chris O'Shea responsible for what happened? Yes. Is he likely to face calls to resign? Yes. Should he resign? Arguably, yes.
So far play to him for holding his hands up here. Lots would have said 'I didn't know. Not my fault.' He hasn't done so.
What happens next will be interesting but will surely involve criminal prosecutions.
If only the likes of Raab, Case, Acland-Hood and Dick would show the same self-awareness...