I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
We might, but most local councillors are capable only of animal functions.
Vegetative seems sufficient, given the insistence by our PBRoyalists that the Queen/King is only a figurehead; there are plenty of such wooden things in the dockyard museums at Plymouth and Portsmouith, and IIRC also Plymouth City Museum in its modern incarnation.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
You're basically demanding it's impossible for civil servants to go jobhunting at all. Even when thewy have been told they'll get no further promotion in the service, as happened with Ms Gray.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
“I’ve only been Prime Minister for six months, but I do believe we are making good progress. If you think about where were were then, and where we are now. Our economy is in much better shape. Our politics doesn’t feel like a box set drama anymore, and our friends and our allies know that we are back…”
What a pathetic little turd. Demanding party loyalty yet stabbing out at his party at every opportunity to cover his total inadequacy. But how fitting that 'friends and allies' get a mention given that they're who his Government operates for.
Curious commentary. Are you the guy still holding a light for Ms Truss?
I really don't see what you find curious about it. No matter how bad things got, did we see May put the public boot into Cameron in this way? Boris into May? Truss into Boris? He is abominably indiscreet, and clearly doesn't give a flying **** about the Tory Party, just saving his own sorry hide. I also find it alarming that he thinks he ought to remain in position because of 'our friends and allies' - like the British peoples' democratically expressed two fingers counts less than being back-slapped at Davos.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
“Fewer than half of Canadians (47%, -5) expect Canada to still be a monarchy in twenty years, while more than a third (36%, +5) believe the country will feature an elected head of state by then.”
So a large plurality expect Canada to still be a monarchy in TWO DECADES
It’s just not an issue in Canada. I have quite a few Canadian friends and relatives. In their Canadian way they veer between polite apathy, and polite interest or disinterest. The only serious republicanism is in Quebec
I suggest this will not change despite Canada’s large scale immigration. People who move there, move there partly for the stability and prosperity. They don’t move for the weather
And they only have to look south to see a totally dysfunctional republic spiraling into crime, murder, rancor, race division, endless gun violence, brutal urban decay, declining life expectancy and widescale drug addicted helplessness, with quasi-fascist presidents stoking insurrection. Who would prefer that to an ancient dependable monarchy with nice music and silly hats?
What could kill it is the Wokery.
Canada is now very very Woke - they were pulling down statues of QE2 recently, and have disappeared up their own snow goose on colonialism and indigenous rights - so things like Meghan and Harry really have an impact.
I could see them becoming some cold vanilla multicultural UN experiment of a loose and fractured nation with a totally unbound history which doesn't really do anything except sell maple syrup and indulgent hand-wringing.
Eventually I'm not sure it'd stay together at all.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
But Graygate is simply froth compared to the disenfranchisement of the number of voters the header suggests. Your team are in Trump territory. Johnson started it, but Sunak is not minded to resolve the wrong on the grounds that it benefits his political cause.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
I hear Russia used What.Three.Words to locate the Nord Stream.
Watch this - seriously - and tell me that Russia blew up Nordstream
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
You're basically demanding it's impossible for civil servants to go jobhunting at all. Even when thewy have been told they'll get no further promotion in the service, as happened with Ms Gray.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
We might, but most local councillors are capable only of animal functions.
Vegetative seems sufficient, given the insistence by our PBRoyalists that the Queen/King is only a figurehead; there are plenty of such wooden things in the dockyard museums at Plymouth and Portsmouith, and IIRC also Plymouth City Museum in its modern incarnation.
Let's hope in Camilla's case we can forego the bare-breasted approach.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
From the Times piece I linked to upthread;
Sources familiar with the document said that it explicitly accuses Gray of breaching the civil service code by failing to act with honesty, integrity and impartiality. There is, however, a problem. Beyond the fact of her leaving, the Cabinet Office was said to be unable to support the claim that the code was breached, despite the fact that Gray held secret talks with Starmer.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister…
Is it ‘fair enough’ ? Seems pretty questionable to me.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
You're basically demanding it's impossible for civil servants to go jobhunting at all. Even when thewy have been told they'll get no further promotion in the service, as happened with Ms Gray.
Its comedy really. "She didn't do enough garden leave" isn't the allegation. It is that she held secret talks whilst investigating partygate. So it must be a political hatchet job. Which means BORIS WAS INNOCENT.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
From the Times piece I linked to upthread;
Sources familiar with the document said that it explicitly accuses Gray of breaching the civil service code by failing to act with honesty, integrity and impartiality. There is, however, a problem. Beyond the fact of her leaving, the Cabinet Office was said to be unable to support the claim that the code was breached, despite the fact that Gray held secret talks with Starmer.
I am making no further comments on this matter as I have tried to be fair and have come under concerted attack which frankly is unnecessary as it will be all laid out in the public domain shortly
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
SSI2 asked: "Jim, have you (yet) announced your candidacy for Governor of Washington in 2024?"
No, and I don't plan to. As I am currently enjoying working through Sandburg's biogrpahy of Lincoln, your question reminded me of this incident: Early in his first term Lincoln was accosted by an office seeker who told Lincoln he had gotten Lincoln elected. Lincoln looked at the pile of papers on his desk, and said something like: "Yes, and see what a jam you have gotten me into."
I'd rather not be in such a jam.
(If there are easy -- and popular -- solutions to the state's major problems, homelessness, fentanyl, the high cost of housing, et cetera, et cetera, they aren't apparent to me.)
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
You're basically demanding it's impossible for civil servants to go jobhunting at all. Even when thewy have been told they'll get no further promotion in the service, as happened with Ms Gray.
I am not demanding anything
Wait and see the reports conclusion
There is a space between officially drawing no conclusions and treating all possibilities as of equal probability pending an official report - thus inflating what might be very low possibility scenarios as being of equal plausibility - and keeping an open mind whilst making a reasonable assessment based on the available information.
People have to be willing to change their minds when more information becomes available, but it is also absurd to think they should not be reasonably able to form an initial view because they have to 'wait and see' for the conclusion before creating even very formative conclusions.
Canucks fleeing Canada especially think on the ground in WA State.
Been a while, but last time I attended 4th of July citizenship ceremony at Seattle Center, for new American citizens, the largest contingent from single country was from Canada.
Mostly it seems, from folks who'd been living and working in US for ages, and finally decided to make the plunge. Well assimilated, to put it mildly!
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
And here is the can of worms you are now peddling.
Civil servants step from the service to plush jobs. Like Ed Llewelyn straight into Downing Street. That was ok. All the previous ones were ok. But the SueGray one was BAD because she wrote a report about Boris (which exonerated him) and therefore we must stop civil servants moving into jobs.
Except that would be rather bad for the civil service. Which is why the non-report into the non-scandal was spun by the Tories to liar media to tell lies to the gullible - sadly that includes you. After digesting 10 days of nonsense about Currygate lies, you are now eating Graygate and saying "this looks very serious".
Where do I say this looks very serious
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
You're basically demanding it's impossible for civil servants to go jobhunting at all. Even when thewy have been told they'll get no further promotion in the service, as happened with Ms Gray.
Its comedy really. "She didn't do enough garden leave" isn't the allegation. It is that she held secret talks whilst investigating partygate. So it must be a political hatchet job. Which means BORIS WAS INNOCENT.
You see I do not subscribe to that nonsense coming from some in the conservative party, and have openly expressed my support for her 'fair' report into Johnson
Her discussions with Starmer happened after the report but an investigation is ongoing and needs to be allowed to publish its findings
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Gray-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson, and in fact complied with the civil service code.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Gray that there could be civil disorder.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
Why do you need to elect a Head of State?
Would you like a vote on every British ambassador?
How many ambassadors open Parliament?
Ambassadors perform lots of ceremonies.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
Most Commonwealth countries are republics. Most EU countries are republics. Most democracies are republics.
I know it is your thing, but I still never get why your argument appears to be that if most places do X, every place should do X. Places can be different, and what matters is whether it works - many would say it doesn't, but 'other places do x' is not saying that.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
Why do you need to elect a Head of State?
Would you like a vote on every British ambassador?
How many ambassadors open Parliament?
Ambassadors perform lots of ceremonies.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
Most Commonwealth countries are republics. Most EU countries are republics. Most democracies are republics.
I know it is your thing, but I still never get why your argument appears to be that if most places do X, every place should do X. Places can be different, and what matters is whether it works - many would say it doesn't, but 'other places do x' is not saying that.
Monarchists just don't believe in the people being allowed to choose their head of state!
Now, don't get me wrong. If Charlie decided to put himself up for election, and he duly won, I wouldn't have a problem with that what so ever!
That ship has sailed. Precious few consider adultery an issue.
Adultery is bad, and serial adultery in particular, but forgiveness is also a virtue.
What astonishes me is how viscerally some people I know loathe Camilla. Follow me to anecdote land, but I listened to two who were spitting mad about being called Queen now ("That's never happened before!") and how that went against what the Queen wanted, even though one was a committed republican, and the other was a "I was never really a fan but respected the Queen, and it should have ended with her" republican.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
Why do you need to elect a Head of State?
Would you like a vote on every British ambassador?
How many ambassadors open Parliament?
Ambassadors perform lots of ceremonies.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
Most Commonwealth countries are republics. Most EU countries are republics. Most democracies are republics.
I know it is your thing, but I still never get why your argument appears to be that if most places do X, every place should do X. Places can be different, and what matters is whether it works - many would say it doesn't, but 'other places do x' is not saying that.
Monarchists just don't believe in the people being allowed to choose their head of state!
?
Er, I think the people can choose their head of state. What I think is that at the present time a majority of them do not care to do so, and that is still a choice - when they change their mind, they will get their wish.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
Why do you need to elect a Head of State?
Would you like a vote on every British ambassador?
How many ambassadors open Parliament?
Ambassadors perform lots of ceremonies.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
Most Commonwealth countries are republics. Most EU countries are republics. Most democracies are republics.
I know it is your thing, but I still never get why your argument appears to be that if most places do X, every place should do X. Places can be different, and what matters is whether it works - many would say it doesn't, but 'other places do x' is not saying that.
Monarchists just don't believe in the people being allowed to choose their head of state!
?
Er, I think the people can choose their head of state. What I think is that at the present time a majority of them do not care to do so, and that is still a choice - when they change their mind, they will get their wish.
Now, don't get me wrong. If Charlie decided to put himself up for election, and he duly won, I wouldn't have a problem with that what so ever!
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Gray-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson, and in fact complied with the civil service code.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Gray that there could be civil disorder.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
I expect the lib dems to be the big winners tomorrow and a very bad night for the conservatives
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
SSI2 asked: "Jim, have you (yet) announced your candidacy for Governor of Washington in 2024?"
No, and I don't plan to. As I am currently enjoying working through Sandburg's biogrpahy of Lincoln, your question reminded me of this incident: Early in his first term Lincoln was accosted by an office seeker who told Lincoln he had gotten Lincoln elected. Lincoln looked at the pile of papers on his desk, and said something like: "Yes, and see what a jam you have gotten me into."
I'd rather not be in such a jam.
(If there are easy -- and popular -- solutions to the state's major problems, homelessness, fentanyl, the high cost of housing, et cetera, et cetera, they aren't apparent to me.)
You have a point. And do hope that a semi-respectable Republican does make 2023 WA governors race, if only for the good of the small-d democratic order.
BUT who could that be? Former GOP Secretary of State Kim Wyman could . . . IF she hadn't resigned statewide office to take job with Biden, largely recoiling from venom she received from MAGA-maniacs for just doing her job.
Similar but worse problem for former Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who voted in Jan 2021 to impeach Trump, which led directly to her defeat for re-election in 2022 primary. (Anyway, JBH may well run again for US House in 2024, better prospect than statewide.)
Almost certainly best hope for GOP in WA to recapture any statewide office, is at lower tier specifically open-seat races for Commissioner of Public Lands and Insurance Commissioner.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
The answer to your second question is "Yes" actually.
If Russia had simply turned off the taps, they are liable for termination payments under the Nordstream contracts. I appreciate they wouldn't have paid them, but nevertheless, the payments would still be liable and would no doubt be raised at some later point years down the line.
By having Nordstream blown up by the British Security Services (of course), then its frustration of contract and the termination payments are not payable.
So yes, Russia did have a motive, especially once it became clear that Germany wasn't going to buckle and ask for the taps to be turned back on.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
So when anything blows up anywhere, the White House, Pentagon, CIA and or Department of Agriculture have signed off on it?
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
The Russians couldn't carry out sabotage without American approval?
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
So when anything blows up anywhere, the White House, Pentagon, CIA and or Department of Agriculture have signed off on it?
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Your theory that the US controls everything fails to explain how the pipeline got built in the first place.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
From the Times piece I linked to upthread;
Sources familiar with the document said that it explicitly accuses Gray of breaching the civil service code by failing to act with honesty, integrity and impartiality. There is, however, a problem. Beyond the fact of her leaving, the Cabinet Office was said to be unable to support the claim that the code was breached, despite the fact that Gray held secret talks with Starmer.
I am making no further comments on this matter as I have tried to be fair and have come under concerted attack which frankly is unnecessary as it will be all laid out in the public domain shortly
Its not an attack, just an observation. You swallowed the Currygate "story" and kept on at it. And this is yet another non-story baseless smear fed to Tory client journalists. That they have been shown a copy of a supposed confidential report is bad, that what they wrote is different to what is now emerging is worse.
They're lying to you and people like you. Because they think you will lap up anything they say. Please don't! They're playing you, don't let them.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
So when anything blows up anywhere, the White House, Pentagon, CIA and or Department of Agriculture have signed off on it?
AND does "no state actor" include Russia?
No, I am not including Russia in 'no state actor', but I have never seen a convincing argument as to why they would destroy their own pipeline.
I am including anyone in the Western alliance, certainly, if we're alleging Poland, UK etc.
That ship has sailed. Precious few consider adultery an issue.
Adultery is bad, and serial adultery in particular, but forgiveness is also a virtue.
What astonishes me is how viscerally some people I know loathe Camilla. Follow me to anecdote land, but I listened to two who were spitting mad about being called Queen now ("That's never happened before!") and how that went against what the Queen wanted, even though one was a committed republican, and the other was a "I was never really a fan but respected the Queen, and it should have ended with her" republican.
Didn't Queen Anne (Boleyn) has same problem thanks to being "the other woman" re: Queen Catherine (of Aragon)?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
The Survation numbers (23%) look very poor for the Conservatives - what would make it worse (arguably) would be a stronger Labour show so 33% with Survation (37% with Omnisis) looks uninspiring. Basically, the duopoly polls 63% with Omnisis but just 56% with Survation and the difference is basically a much better poll for Independents and a slightly better poll for the Greens.
The "swing" from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since 2019 would be 4% - enough, you'd think, to maintain most of the 700 LD gains and add some more but the main movement is Conservative to Labour which will have some impact and, let's not forget, Labour also made net losses in 2019.
The question is whether the story is the Conservative losses or the Labour gains.
Dark day for Kherson today. As a result of Russian shelling, at least 21 people were killed and 48 were wounded. There are children among casualties. Russian military keeps terrorising Ukrainian civilians. I care about this terrorism much more than about drones over Kremlin https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1653863847973855233
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
I have no clue whatsoever who destroyed the pipeline so sure it could have been them, but powerful though the United States is it seems somewhat implausible to claim that everyone else cannot do anything without their explicit approval and support. It's usually presented just like that, as simply a broad claim of fact that it is not possible without them, ergo it probably was them, or that it doesn't make 'sense' that someone else would do so, even though a) national leaders take their countries in directions that on the surface don't appear ot make sense at the time, and b) there are explanations where it would make sense, even if some of those explanations are not very likely, and so are at least plausible scenarios.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Your theory that the US controls everything fails to explain how the pipeline got built in the first place.
I don't have a theory that the US controls everything - nothing controls everything. I do contend that foreign military policy in the West concerning Ukraine especially is very tightly controlled by (you can use the phrase 'closely coordinated with' if it makes you feel better) the US, and I find it deeply implausible that the UK, Poland, or anybody else in the Western alliance taking an active role in the conflict, would go off-piste in an act of this kind, without US consent.
There are countries within the US alliance who will go off-piste; they're usually people like Turkey, KSA, Israel - aggressive Middle East players who will attack or bomb someone if they feel the need and sort things out later. But that isn't Western Europe of the last decade.
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
So in other words 66% of Canadians do not want a republic even now.
Plus given PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre both back the monarchy (with only the minor NDP and BQ and Green parties backing a republic) there is zero chance of any referendum on the monarchy in Canada anytime soon anyway
Dark day for Kherson today. As a result of Russian shelling, at least 21 people were killed and 48 were wounded. There are children among casualties. Russian military keeps terrorising Ukrainian civilians. I care about this terrorism much more than about drones over Kremlin https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1653863847973855233
There is still, not even merely among tankies, a rather bizarre way of discussing Ukrainian (or alleged Ukrainian) actions as escalatory or provocative, like the striking of targets within Russia itself, even as Russia engages in missile attacks on civilian centres which appear to have no military value whatsoever.
There are several thousand nuclear reasons why even if they had the means to do so Ukraine would be insane to, say, march on Moscow, and so Western nerves over what might provoke Putin to nuclear irrationality is not itself absurd (though as events have proven wildly overcautious at the extreme end, or we'd have seen nukes a long time ago), but it does sometimes seem that Ukraine is being armed to fight with one arm tied behind their back whilst still expected to be boy scouts.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
The Survation numbers (23%) look very poor for the Conservatives - what would make it worse (arguably) would be a stronger Labour show so 33% with Survation (37% with Omnisis) looks uninspiring. Basically, the duopoly polls 63% with Omnisis but just 56% with Survation and the difference is basically a much better poll for Independents and a slightly better poll for the Greens.
The "swing" from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since 2019 would be 4% - enough, you'd think, to maintain most of the 700 LD gains and add some more but the main movement is Conservative to Labour which will have some impact and, let's not forget, Labour also made net losses in 2019.
The question is whether the story is the Conservative losses or the Labour gains.
That poll matches my prediction, 23%, so I am hardly want to attack it. But it’s still a 10% Labour lead, and Greens very high in it. I think Labour 40% Tories 23% Lib Dem’s 17% and greens nowhere near 11%.
Polling was not as consistent in 2019 as this year where the Tories have not climbed above 29% for 7 months. The Corbyn Effect that cost Labour later in 2019 must have been there for the locals like a brake that is taken off for this one, it’s not just expecting PNE LLG of over sixty, it’s how interchangeable it is.
So I disagree with Curtis - the 10% labour lead is not the whole story, Tory getting vote out and how fluid LLG is where it needs to be is very much part of the headlines too, if looking for GE pointers.
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
Most recent Canada polling I could find on monarchy:
>> Research Co - Fewer than One-in-Five Canadians Want Monarchy to Continue
The proportion of Canadians who would like to maintain a form of government with a monarch has fallen to the lowest level recorded in 14 years, a new Research Co. poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample, only 19% of Canadians say they would prefer for Canada to remain a monarchy, down 12 points since a similar Research Co. poll conducted in September 2022.
More than four-in-five Canadians (44%, +8) would prefer for Canada to have an elected head of state, while 22% (-2) do not care either way and 15% (+4) are undecided.
Fewer than one-in-four Albertans (24%, -18), Atlantic Canadians (also 24%, -16) and British Columbians (23%, -11) endorse the continuation of the monarchy. The numbers are lower in Saskatchewan and Manitoba (20%, -6), Ontario (19%, -12) and Quebec (14%, -11). . . .
Results are based on an online study conducted from March 3 to March 5, 2023, among 1,000 adults in Canada. The data has been statistically weighted according to Canadian census figures for age, gender and region. The margin of error – which measures sample variability – is +/- 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
WRT monarchy, I reiterate what’s in a name? Technically, Rome only ceased to a Republic in 284 AD.
What matters is how accountable are those who exercise power.
If we can elect our Councillors, why not elect our Head of State?
Why do you need to elect a Head of State?
Would you like a vote on every British ambassador?
How many ambassadors open Parliament?
Ambassadors perform lots of ceremonies.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
Most Commonwealth countries are republics. Most EU countries are republics. Most democracies are republics.
I know it is your thing, but I still never get why your argument appears to be that if most places do X, every place should do X. Places can be different, and what matters is whether it works - many would say it doesn't, but 'other places do x' is not saying that.
Monarchists just don't believe in the people being allowed to choose their head of state!
Now, don't get me wrong. If Charlie decided to put himself up for election, and he duly won, I wouldn't have a problem with that what so ever!
I think in most EU countries (14 out of 27 by my count) heads of state are not chosen by the people - or at least not directly elected.
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
The SNP in-fighting is getting extraordinarily vicious. Yousaf considering publishing a report on alleged bullying by Fergus Ewing during his tenure as a minister. Ewing has been one of the MSP's most contemptuous of Yousaf and the SNP alliance with the Greens.
For those not conversant with the minutiae of SNP history, the Ewings are the nearest thing the Nats have to royalty. His Mum is Winnie, one of the first SNP MPs, and his sister is also a member at Holyrood.
This was playing in the pub just now, as people shouted and swore about Sue Gray, There was one young woman who was literally shaking with fury, and I felt concerned for her and her child, and so tried to comisserate.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
There is more-than-circumstantial evidence that multiple Tories have siphoned off millions from the public purse to their mates. Spaffer arranged a massive loan from his pal who he installed at the top of the BBC. But hey, two people spoke to each other, that’s much worse.
The manufactured scandal of Graygate is even more embarrassing than the nonentity that was Beergate.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Your theory that the US controls everything fails to explain how the pipeline got built in the first place.
I don't have a theory that the US controls everything - nothing controls everything. I do contend that foreign military policy in the West concerning Ukraine especially is very tightly controlled by (you can use the phrase 'closely coordinated with' if it makes you feel better) the US, and I find it deeply implausible that the UK, Poland, or anybody else in the Western alliance taking an active role in the conflict, would go off-piste in an act of this kind, without US consent.
There are countries within the US alliance who will go off-piste; they're usually people like Turkey, KSA, Israel - aggressive Middle East players who will attack or bomb someone if they feel the need and sort things out later. But that isn't Western Europe of the last decade.
You might be guilty of seeing the US as more monolithic than it is. For example, which department is taking the lead on coordinating all of this? Does the State Department have the same position as the CIA or the Department of Defense?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
I think I had quick whip through it once.
It didn’t draw you in and tie you down for long then.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
The breach being? It seems the Tories claiming the breach is merely if you want to recruit a senior civil servant you need to approach government first, not tap them up? Maybe that is a breach, but not a whopper of a breach, also one the Tories will always have to have strictly followed or else this blows up in their face, certainly not enough a breach to demand it must be more than 6 months gardening leave between jobs do you think?
I have no idea what the recommendation will be if the report finds against Sue Gray
Fair play. When PB said Big G please explain, you fronted up and explained. 🙂
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
I came under considerable attack on simply stating what I considered a fair response
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
It’s true. Soon as you posted, everyone came back with an opinion.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
I think I had quick whip through it once.
It didn’t draw you in and tie you down for long then.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
If it was the Americans it was a rogue actor. The American policy is to keep the Germans on side, despite some challenges. Also they don't care about European pipelines.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
I expect the lib dems to be the big winners tomorrow and a very bad night for the conservatives
I think the Greens will be the biggest winners in terms of percentage increase. LDs will hold their gains from the previous Locals, which is in itself a success. Lab will regain ground and Tories lose it, but not in a particularly spectacular way. A low turnout too, with debate over voter suppression vs apathy.
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Your theory that the US controls everything fails to explain how the pipeline got built in the first place.
I don't have a theory that the US controls everything - nothing controls everything. I do contend that foreign military policy in the West concerning Ukraine especially is very tightly controlled by (you can use the phrase 'closely coordinated with' if it makes you feel better) the US, and I find it deeply implausible that the UK, Poland, or anybody else in the Western alliance taking an active role in the conflict, would go off-piste in an act of this kind, without US consent.
There are countries within the US alliance who will go off-piste; they're usually people like Turkey, KSA, Israel - aggressive Middle East players who will attack or bomb someone if they feel the need and sort things out later. But that isn't Western Europe of the last decade.
You might be guilty of seeing the US as more monolithic than it is. For example, which department is taking the lead on coordinating all of this? Does the State Department have the same position as the CIA or the Department of Defense?
Sure, but whoever is handing out the orders on Ukraine, we're following them.
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
How many personations prevented justifies depriving millions of their right to vote?
In courts we don't presume guilt, and accept that in the absence of evidence the accused goes free, yet here we reverse the burden of proof.
When I vote tomorrow I will take my ID, but also forcefully complain to the officials about having to do so.
My favourite counter-measure would be quite technical - instruct the Boundary Commission to draw constituency boundaries according to population, as shown by the census, rather than by the number who have registered. That would eliminate the inherent bias to older, more settled people, as opposed to young people who constantly move around. I wouldn't extend the vote to anyone unregistered, but a community of 80,000 should be worth an MP regardless of how many of them have in fact registered.
Agreed - calculating based on a measure that is even more changable than mere population growth is a poor idea.
I've never known a Labour supporter who doesn't support this move.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
Whoever blew up Nordstream presumably did it to make a point, and yet we don't know who they are. Which is strange.
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Just like the Confederacy in start of US Civil War re: "King Cotton"
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Having said that, I'm not 100% convinced the Russians did blow up the pipeline. Or if they dId it was perhaps a "only supposed to blow the bloody doors off" kind of mistake. If it wasn't the Russians, then who? The message - whoever it was delivering it - was aimed at the Germans clearly. This doesn't fit the Biden playbook of co-opting allies, of whom the Germans are the most important. Very risky for the Ukrainians for the same reason. Poles, I could see. They always hated Nordstream and they don't have time for the Germans either.
There is no a state actor in this, including Ukraine, who could do this without American approval. American approval would only have been forthcoming if the pipeline being blown up fitted in with their overall plan. Therefore, it is an American move, regardless of which bit part player (hopefully not the RN) may have done the deed itself so that they could have clean hands. The only other player than Russia or 'The West' is China, and I can't see them doing it, though it would be quite a plot twist.
Your theory that the US controls everything fails to explain how the pipeline got built in the first place.
I don't have a theory that the US controls everything - nothing controls everything. I do contend that foreign military policy in the West concerning Ukraine especially is very tightly controlled by (you can use the phrase 'closely coordinated with' if it makes you feel better) the US, and I find it deeply implausible that the UK, Poland, or anybody else in the Western alliance taking an active role in the conflict, would go off-piste in an act of this kind, without US consent.
There are countries within the US alliance who will go off-piste; they're usually people like Turkey, KSA, Israel - aggressive Middle East players who will attack or bomb someone if they feel the need and sort things out later. But that isn't Western Europe of the last decade.
You might be guilty of seeing the US as more monolithic than it is. For example, which department is taking the lead on coordinating all of this? Does the State Department have the same position as the CIA or the Department of Defense?
I still dont buy into the idea that the Nordstream attack had to be a state actor.
The pipeline was in moderately shallow water - easily diveable. You might me able to do it on simple air. But lots of moderately keen divers can do tri-mix and the rest.
The pipeline itself was unguarded and simply sits on the seabed. The position is marked on navigation charts (in the hope that people will be sensible with their anchors). Due to its size, shape and material, it would stand out on even a fish finding sonar.
The amount of explosives required to destroy it wouldn’t be huge. The pipeline was highly pressurised - once breached it would tend to “unzip”, tearing a bigger hole as the gas poured out.
Poor Leon, is there any subject he's never right on?
Nato suspects that Russia has planted explosives on critical European undersea infrastructure, based on intelligence from the companies that run oil and gas rigs, pipelines, electricity connectors and telecoms cables.
In mid-February the alliance set up a “critical undersea infrastructure co-ordination cell” led by Lieutenant General Hans-Werner Wiermann, a retired German military officer.
Amid reports of Russian espionage operations, his main mission is to find out what Russia has been up to since last autumn’s sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines shocked the alliance and panicked governments.
The unit will report to a summit of Nato leaders in July and is building an intelligence picture of the critical infrastructure. “Why is there this Russian focus on undersea offshore infrastructure? The answer is obvious,” said a Nato official involved in the work.
“If Russia attacks one of our power plants on land, that is war. If the Russians can sabotage one of our undersea pipelines or cables then — look at Nord Stream, we still do not know who did that — they can attack deniably.”
While investigations into the Nord Stream bombing continue and several theories have been suggested, there is growing evidence that links the Russian navy to the attack.
Is there any logical reason Russia would attack its OWN infrastructure (it paid and campaigned for Nordstream) thus ending any chance of exerting leverage via that pipeline? No
We now know who did for Nordstream, and it was the Ukrainians.
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
“those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.”
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
I expect the lib dems to be the big winners tomorrow and a very bad night for the conservatives
I hope so as if so I will win my fun charity bet with @HYUFD. In fairness to HYUFD he made the sensible bet and I made the risky one, so will be chuffed if it comes off, but my gut from this neck of the woods encouraged me even if we did make big gains here last time.
(I'm not sure how seriously to take the results, since when I went through the steps, it claimed I might live 20 more years to 102. I'll turn 80 this August.)
Well, you might.
We've just got a new investor in our insurance company who is 97 and pretty spritely. I'd be very surprised if he didn't make it to 102.
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
How many personations prevented justifies depriving millions of their right to vote?
In courts we don't presume guilt, and accept that in the absence of evidence the accused goes free, yet here we reverse the burden of proof.
When I vote tomorrow I will take my ID, but also forcefully complain to the officials about having to do so.
I agree that there is little real justification to the voting changes.
Comments
Wait for the report and if it concludes Sue Gray breached civil service rules I will accept your apology
To your point, Russia did at the time sabotage its own pipeline, for example destroying the compressors. Its most important war aim last summer after occupying Ukraine was to force European countries, particularly Germany, to abandon support for Ukraine by cutting off fuel supplies. They eventually gave up on that policy when they realised it wasn't going to work and would hurt them more than the countries they were targeting. But Putin definitely thought he was onto a winner with that idea.
Canada is now very very Woke - they were pulling down statues of QE2 recently, and have disappeared up their own snow goose on colonialism and indigenous rights - so things like Meghan and Harry really have an impact.
I could see them becoming some cold vanilla multicultural UN experiment of a loose and fractured nation with a totally unbound history which doesn't really do anything except sell maple syrup and indulgent hand-wringing.
Eventually I'm not sure it'd stay together at all.
Preposterous’ but ‘loved’ it: A guide to Netflix’s ‘The Diplomat’
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/03/the-diplomat-opinion-reality-00094906
In answer to that: More than you appear to think: https://www.statista.com/statistics/443066/number-of-emigrants-from-canada/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65461401
Wait and see the reports conclusion
Southern slave-drivers (and their British fan-boys) bet the plantation on THAT economic-strategic imperative.
Sources familiar with the document said that it explicitly accuses Gray of breaching the civil service code by failing to act with honesty, integrity and impartiality. There is, however, a problem. Beyond the fact of her leaving, the Cabinet Office was said to be unable to support the claim that the code was breached, despite the fact that Gray held secret talks with Starmer.
Seems pretty questionable to me.
Opening Parliament is a ceremony.
Honestly, it's a lot of fuss about nothing. This is just self-indulgent constitutional masturbation.
No, and I don't plan to. As I am currently enjoying working through Sandburg's biogrpahy of Lincoln, your question reminded me of this incident: Early in his first term Lincoln was accosted by an office seeker who told Lincoln he had gotten Lincoln elected. Lincoln looked at the pile of papers on his desk, and said something like: "Yes, and see what a jam you have gotten me into."
I'd rather not be in such a jam.
(If there are easy -- and popular -- solutions to the state's major problems, homelessness, fentanyl, the high cost of housing, et cetera, et cetera, they aren't apparent to me.)
People have to be willing to change their minds when more information becomes available, but it is also absurd to think they should not be reasonably able to form an initial view because they have to 'wait and see' for the conclusion before creating even very formative conclusions.
Been a while, but last time I attended 4th of July citizenship ceremony at Seattle Center, for new American citizens, the largest contingent from single country was from Canada.
Mostly it seems, from folks who'd been living and working in US for ages, and finally decided to make the plunge. Well assimilated, to put it mildly!
Republicans are like a lot of Star Trek: Picard "fans" who want to ban Season 3 and make everyone watch the worst episodes of Season 2 - forever.
Most EU countries are republics.
Most democracies are republics.
Her discussions with Starmer happened after the report but an investigation is ongoing and needs to be allowed to publish its findings
Do not include me in the Johnson supporters club
On matters more immediate, the Survation local election numbers would, if accurate, be very poor for the Conservatives and in truth uninspiring for Labour with the Liberal Democrats and Greens doing well.
I'm not entirely convinced but we'll see if those who are predicting Conservative losses at or below 500 are doing anything other than blowing smoke.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Gray that there could be civil disorder.
Now, don't get me wrong. If Charlie decided to put himself up for election, and he duly won, I wouldn't have a problem with that what so ever!
What astonishes me is how viscerally some people I know loathe Camilla. Follow me to anecdote land, but I listened to two who were spitting mad about being called Queen now ("That's never happened before!") and how that went against what the Queen wanted, even though one was a committed republican, and the other was a "I was never really a fan but respected the Queen, and it should have ended with her" republican.
They are basing it on what happened in 2019 a high watershed for libdems and greens and under 30 PNE for Tories, and what has happened historically, especially in this set of elections.
But this as an exceptional period of politics, a LLG of 60 plus out to get the Tories, the most unprecedented credit crunch ever.
Er, I think the people can choose their head of state. What I think is that at the present time a majority of them do not care to do so, and that is still a choice - when they change their mind, they will get their wish.
BUT who could that be? Former GOP Secretary of State Kim Wyman could . . . IF she hadn't resigned statewide office to take job with Biden, largely recoiling from venom she received from MAGA-maniacs for just doing her job.
Similar but worse problem for former Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler, who voted in Jan 2021 to impeach Trump, which led directly to her defeat for re-election in 2022 primary. (Anyway, JBH may well run again for US House in 2024, better prospect than statewide.)
Almost certainly best hope for GOP in WA to recapture any statewide office, is at lower tier specifically open-seat races for Commissioner of Public Lands and Insurance Commissioner.
If Russia had simply turned off the taps, they are liable for termination payments under the Nordstream contracts. I appreciate they wouldn't have paid them, but nevertheless, the payments would still be liable and would no doubt be raised at some later point years down the line.
By having Nordstream blown up by the British Security Services (of course), then its frustration of contract and the termination payments are not payable.
So yes, Russia did have a motive, especially once it became clear that Germany wasn't going to buckle and ask for the taps to be turned back on.
AND does "no state actor" include Russia?
I mean - seriously?
They're lying to you and people like you. Because they think you will lap up anything they say. Please don't! They're playing you, don't let them.
I am including anyone in the Western alliance, certainly, if we're alleging Poland, UK etc.
Comes with the territory.
The "swing" from Conservative to Liberal Democrat since 2019 would be 4% - enough, you'd think, to maintain most of the 700 LD gains and add some more but the main movement is Conservative to Labour which will have some impact and, let's not forget, Labour also made net losses in 2019.
The question is whether the story is the Conservative losses or the Labour gains.
https://twitter.com/olgatokariuk/status/1653863847973855233
Sue and Starmer talking, without Starmer clearing those talks first with government is a breach of the code I am sure. But only a minor breach, no 2 year gardening leave can be justified from that, we all know that, and this overhyped Graygate has fizzled out, in truth
There are countries within the US alliance who will go off-piste; they're usually people like Turkey, KSA, Israel - aggressive Middle East players who will attack or bomb someone if they feel the need and sort things out later. But that isn't Western Europe of the last decade.
Plus given PM Trudeau and Leader of the Opposition Poilievre both back the monarchy (with only the minor NDP and BQ and Green parties backing a republic) there is zero chance of any referendum on the monarchy in Canada anytime soon anyway
There are several thousand nuclear reasons why even if they had the means to do so Ukraine would be insane to, say, march on Moscow, and so Western nerves over what might provoke Putin to nuclear irrationality is not itself absurd (though as events have proven wildly overcautious at the extreme end, or we'd have seen nukes a long time ago), but it does sometimes seem that Ukraine is being armed to fight with one arm tied behind their back whilst still expected to be boy scouts.
I'm bummed too - I'm a monarchist and couldn't get beyond the first season without snoozing.
I reiterate I believe her report into Johnson was fair and indeed lenient and was completed before her talks with Starmer
There are some in the conservative party who are trying to ludicrously claim it negates her report and I reject that100%
The question relates to whether in discussing her appointment to Starmer and labour was in breach of civil service rules and that will be answered shortly
The question of gardening leave will follow the report
I would just say pilling into a fellow poster who may have a more nuanced opinion than some can be unfair
Polling was not as consistent in 2019 as this year where the Tories have not climbed above 29% for 7 months. The Corbyn Effect that cost Labour later in 2019 must have been there for the locals like a brake that is taken off for this one, it’s not just expecting PNE LLG of over sixty, it’s how interchangeable it is.
So I disagree with Curtis - the 10% labour lead is not the whole story, Tory getting vote out and how fluid LLG is where it needs to be is very much part of the headlines too, if looking for GE pointers.
It’s an incredible achievement.
Actually makes me a teeny bit sad!
https://twitter.com/TmorrowsPapers/status/1653870318572666882?t=Tpc0EQVrYxRtV5GcDExmoQ&s=19
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
For those not conversant with the minutiae of SNP history, the Ewings are the nearest thing the Nats have to royalty. His Mum is Winnie, one of the first SNP MPs, and his sister is also a member at Holyrood.
https://news.stv.tv/politics/humza-yousaf-to-look-at-releasing-bullying-report-into-former-minister-fergus-ewing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gRi2dn74s
This was playing in the pub just now, as people shouted and swore about Sue Gray, There was one young woman who was literally shaking with fury, and I felt concerned for her and her child, and so tried to comisserate.
The manufactured scandal of Graygate is even more embarrassing than the nonentity that was Beergate.
But where we don’t know the outcome, you do concede there are breaches and then there are breaches of code, “you didn’t ask for permission first” being very minor - and the length of gardening leave, largely there for commercial consideration, defence PS to defence industry for example, utterly absent in Civil Service to political party role moves, so will need something remarkable we havn’t or heard of yet to be longer than standard 6 months?
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be
around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
In courts we don't presume guilt, and accept that in the absence of evidence the accused goes free, yet here we reverse the burden of proof.
When I vote tomorrow I will take my ID, but also forcefully complain to the officials about having to do so.
The pipeline was in moderately shallow water - easily diveable. You might me able to do it on simple air. But lots of moderately keen divers can do tri-mix and the rest.
The pipeline itself was unguarded and simply sits on the seabed. The position is marked on navigation charts (in the hope that people will be sensible with their anchors). Due to its size, shape and material, it would stand out on even a fish finding sonar.
The amount of explosives required to destroy it wouldn’t be huge. The pipeline was highly pressurised - once breached it would tend to “unzip”, tearing a bigger hole as the gas poured out.
This wasn’t Ivy Bells, let alone Azorian.
We've just got a new investor in our insurance company who is 97 and pretty spritely. I'd be very surprised if he didn't make it to 102.