What a weirdo. If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.
It's a common symptom of Israel Derangement Syndrome though.
It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.
It is so easy
1) "Benjamin Netanyahu is demonstrably a crook, and a racist arsehole, who pursues disgusting, racist policies towards the Palestinians" - NOT A RACIST STATEMENT
2) "The Blood Libel must have some truth behind it." - RACIST
In order not to be anti-semitic, just criticise actual actions by actual people or actual groups. If anything starts with "all Jews..."
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Manufacturing UKs inflation busting recession is coming along nicely. Ordinarily, downturn data wouldn’t be best followed with by yet another interest rate rise.
I also would not expect a house price correction without stock market pressures. Let’s be careful how we are investing until UK economy is out of the woods.
Had Boris not been ousted he was apparently on his way out as Chancellor.
Sunak has no reputation for cautious parsimony! He goes down in history books as the spaff it, waste it, hand out tens of billions in fraud straight to criminals Chancellor - and that’s even before the truth of the various VIP lanes are known! And he invented a whole new tax, and took us to highest tax ever. The Covid enquiry is going to slice and dice him on value for money.
Mind you, between the SNP and Labour both Dundee and Aberdeen might get cheaper....
Bradford's a genuine bargain. A city I'm very fond of. I like Hull too, but no doubt in my mind I'd much rather live in Bradders.
Surprised Aberdeen is on there though. I'd always thought it was notoriously expensive?
It was until the oil boom deflated - a policy both Labour and the SNP seem determined to pursue....why get oil from UK waters when we can buy it from dictatorships?
Manufacturing UKs inflation busting recession is coming along nicely. Ordinarily, downturn data wouldn’t be best followed with by yet another interest rate rise.
I also would not expect a house price correction without stock market pressures. Let’s be careful how we are investing until UK economy is out of the woods.
Had Boris not been ousted he was apparently on his way out as Chancellor.
Sunak has no reputation for cautious parsimony! He goes down in history books as the spaff it, waste it, hand out tens of billions in fraud straight to criminals Chancellor - and that’s even before the truth of the various VIP lanes are known! And he invented a whole new tax, and took us to highest tax ever. The Covid enquiry is going to slice and dice him.
Indeed the only reason he became popular was because of his pandemic largesse. Easy to be liked when you're dishing out dumptrucks full of krugerrands.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Manufacturing UKs inflation busting recession is coming along nicely. Ordinarily, downturn data wouldn’t be best followed with by yet another interest rate rise.
I also would not expect a house price correction without stock market pressures. Let’s be careful how we are investing until UK economy is out of the woods.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
Angevin Empire - 1176. First declared a Kingdom by Henry VIII.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
Angevin Empire - 1176. First declared a Kingdom by Henry VIII.
So 'English' not 'British.'
Well, I know it is tenuous, but you could argue Henry Tudor was Welsh
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
Angevin Empire - 1176. First declared a Kingdom by Henry VIII.
So 'English' not 'British.'
Well, I know it is tenuous, but you could argue Henry Tudor was Welsh
One of his great-grandparents was Welsh. He actually had more French in him than Welsh.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
@christopherhope 1m It is wide open now for Labour to say that it will release all information that Heather Hallett wants on the day after it wins the general election. To say this is bad optics for the Conservative Government is a complete understatement.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Manufacturing UKs inflation busting recession is coming along nicely. Ordinarily, downturn data wouldn’t be best followed with by yet another interest rate rise.
I also would not expect a house price correction without stock market pressures. Let’s be careful how we are investing until UK economy is out of the woods.
Let's hope for a Covid revelation that removes Sunak before he completes his mission to wreck the economy fully.
Sunak is doing very well in comparison with the two halfwits who preceded him. A decent guy playing a bad hand as well as he can.
What are you actually saying though? Truss spooked things economically by going for change too quickly, but also politically didn’t have her parliamentary party on side at any point - blue on blue brought her down, not Labour - her own MPs making her out to be a halfwit.
Support money was needed for Sunak’s whatever it takes Covid battle, but the question here is about the value for money spent. Who ultimately signed off the VIP lanes for example? And how it was splashed around on non covid things.
The highest tax take ever, the size of the borrowing and costs of its interest, are you blaming Truss for all the bad value for money, fraud and waste of the Chancellor Sunak years?
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
O Blast all these puns.
We must not drone on
On the contrary, we mos go on.
I keep thinking I ought to put my brain to better use and stop the pun war, and then you go and Putin another one!
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
O Blast all these puns.
I'm afraid we're not don yet.
It Moscow on and on.
I beat you both to those. Honestly, can't you understand the importance of sochi contest not repeating itself?
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
...The Cabinet Office digs in and says it will take Covid-19 Inquiry to court...
Other way round, I think.
Nope
Cabinet Office seeking judicial review
That's hardly taking the enquiry to court - it's going to court to seek an injunction.
Of course it's quite likely the enquiry will contest the application, but they've no obligation to do so. In contrast, the enquiry has powers to compel the production of evidence - up to and including criminal sanctions.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
Angevin Empire - 1176. First declared a Kingdom by Henry VIII.
So 'English' not 'British.'
Well, I know it is tenuous, but you could argue Henry Tudor was Welsh
One of his great-grandparents was Welsh. He actually had more French in him than Welsh.
Unless you mean Henry VII.
There are a lot of Scottish rugby players who have more tenuous claims to their Scottishness than Henry had to his Welshness I think!
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
O Blast all these puns.
I'm afraid we're not don yet.
It Moscow on and on.
I beat you both to those. Honestly, can't you understand the importance of sochi contest not repeating itself?
The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.
You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."
*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.
And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?
Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.
Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.
The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.
It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.
The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.
I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.
Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.
But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.
Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.
And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.
But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?
(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)
You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.
Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.
However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?
It dictates that the West needs to give Ukraine just enough help to resist the Russian occupation and grind Russia down rather than imposing such defeats on the Russians that Putin might feel that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option.
The problem with that is that the point where "Putin might feel that recourse to nuclear weapons" is essentially unknowable, especially given Russia rhetoric.
And in the meantime, the 'just enough help' leads to many more Ukrainian deaths.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Assumes poor old Bridgen won't keep his seat for Reform, or Refuse or Reclaim or whatever they are.
I do wonder if the Greens can pull out another seat (Bristol West presumably).
I was pushing that idea for over a year, but backed away from it after the recent locals where Labour done well against Green and Lib Dem’s in places they need to. The seats in that city are changing anyway, its new seat of central thst most favours green as it puts their two big strongholds together into one constituency not divided into2.
The day, perhaps in six years time when it’s all about getting Labour out of power, the Greens win two seats in the city, the headlines will be…
Astonishing . No 10 is refusing to hand over the information requested by its own Covid Inquiry . So in effect this ends up in legal action in which they intend to use the Human Rights Act as defence , the same act many Tories want to get rid of .
Utter vomit inducing hypocrisy and this looks appalling to most of the public .
# Cover-up
I see the free speech Tsar has been announced in an interview to one newspaper. He won't be speaking to any other media nor taking any questions either
Shades of Yes Prime Minister
"How are things at the Campaign for Freedom of Information?" "I'm sorry, I can't talk about that"
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
The Romans traded with Ireland. There many or may not have been some very limited military expeditions there. There may or may not have been slave trading - selling your defeated opponents in tribal wars - with the Romans.
If they had invaded Ireland, Chester might be the capital of the UK today. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Assumes poor old Bridgen won't keep his seat for Reform, or Refuse or Reclaim or whatever they are.
I do wonder if the Greens can pull out another seat (Bristol West presumably).
I was pushing that idea for over a year, but backed away from it after the recent locals where Labour done well against Green and Lib Dem’s in places they need to. The seats in that city are changing anyway, its new seat of central thst most favours green as it puts their two big strongholds together into one constituency not divided into2.
The day, perhaps in six years time when it’s all about getting Labour out of power, the Greens win two seats in the city, the headlines will be…
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Boris played a blinder yesterday. Sunak looks evasive.
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
It definitely comes out, but now it comes out in the worst possible way for Sunak, uncontrolled, unspun, and any upon unsuspecting afternoon, like when he’s on the other side of the world in the Bali or Hawaii junket.
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
I was going to add a pun or two but in the end I decided not to Russian too quickly.
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
It definitely comes out, but now it comes out in the worst possible way for Sunak, uncontrolled, unspun, and any unsuspecting afternoon.
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
I'm talking about things / information that are irrelevant to the inquiry.
Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134 Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):
Assumes poor old Bridgen won't keep his seat for Reform, or Refuse or Reclaim or whatever they are.
I do wonder if the Greens can pull out another seat (Bristol West presumably).
I was pushing that idea for over a year, but backed away from it after the recent locals where Labour done well against Green and Lib Dem’s in places they need to. The seats in that city are changing anyway, its new seat of central thst most favours green as it puts their two big strongholds together into one constituency not divided into2.
The day, perhaps in six years time when it’s all about getting Labour out of power, the Greens win two seats in the city, the headlines will be…
Greens Pair of Bristols 😇
The Greens could lose the one seat they do have, if the local elections are anything to go by. Not Caroline Lucas's fault, but the Greens took a hammering because the Green-led Brighton council pissed off a lot of people in Caroline's constituency. She should hang on, but Labour are a threat.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
Is this a rare case of effective MoD procurement ?
Credit where credit is due. The UK programme to upgrade and increase the M270 GMLRS fleet to 71 launchers is well on track, on time and on budget. It’s an exemplar of a well run DE&S project. Extended range rockets will hit targets at 150 km while PrSM will initially reach 499 km and later 999 km. https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1664151551718375426
The rest of the department will be bloody furious at someone showing everyone that it is possible to hit targets and budgets.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell
Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.
Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.
Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"
Sigh.
After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.
The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.
This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.
No need for a sigh, @Malmesbury . My post was in response to HYUFD's simplistic post which stated "After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century"
Now I guess that one could ask "by what definition", but on a number of levels it is wrong. I am British with Irish ancestry, brought up a Catholic, though no longer "practicing" (and therefore not getting better at it). The reality is that there is an inbuilt cultural prejudice in this country toward Catholicism that goes all the way back to the reformation, combined (and possibly connected) with a prejudice that believes Irish people are backward and stupid. Hence my post, so forgive me for my violent Irish nature that comes to the fore when I see ignorant simplistic crap written about Ireland.
On what level was it wrong? Certainly from about the 1930s to 1990s the Republic of Ireland was the most Catholic nation in Europe after the Vatican City, probably even more so than Italy and Spain. Though now Poland has overtaken it as Ireland has become more socially liberal and the Poles removed Communist atheist rule
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
You blaming the enquiry for anti Tory fishing?
Is this not being largely fuelled by Tory infighting?
All those who think Tories naturally get swingback, have they factored in the display of factional and personality score setting played out in public from here to General Election day?
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
It definitely comes out, but now it comes out in the worst possible way for Sunak, uncontrolled, unspun, and any upon unsuspecting afternoon, like when he’s on the other side of the world in the Bali or Hawaii junket.
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
Everyone is assuming that it is the politicians blocking this, on their own.
Given the results of the "Parties" enquiry in Downing Street, I can very easily see Civil Servants not wanting message groups they were a part of published.
I was told, a long while back, that some civil servants were up in arms because, during COVID, they were told to do A. They decided to B instead. The upset was that the ministers responsible were refusing to take responsibility for decision B.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?
Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him? Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation? Was it the reformation?
It was only the plantations under Tudor and Stuart Kings, Henry VIII making Ireland a Kingdom under his rule and ultimately the 1800 Act of Union that really saw proper British rule of the whole nation
It takes a spectacularly talented government to get into a fight with an Inquiry that it set up itself.
On the face of it it does seem a strange course to take but apparently the cabinet office is concerned about the provision of what's app information that is simply irrelevant and no doubt embarrassing
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
I was going to add a pun or two but in the end I decided not to Russian too quickly.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
You blaming the enquiry for anti Tory fishing?
Is this not being largely fuelled by Tory infighting?
All those who think Tories naturally get swingback, have they factored in the display of factional and personality score setting played out in public from here to General Election day?
No. I'm saying if you give an inquiry a massive amount of information, much of it irrelevant, then that is essentially a trawl.
And there will be stuff that is totally irrelevant to the inquiry but also secret, important or salacious. And you're spreading the people who know about it out massively, including to people who might (shock! horror!) be anti-Tory.
Anything as broad as this trawl appears to be *will* lead to leaks. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's politics.
Is this a rare case of effective MoD procurement ?
Credit where credit is due. The UK programme to upgrade and increase the M270 GMLRS fleet to 71 launchers is well on track, on time and on budget. It’s an exemplar of a well run DE&S project. Extended range rockets will hit targets at 150 km while PrSM will initially reach 499 km and later 999 km. https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1664151551718375426
The rest of the department will be bloody furious at someone showing everyone that it is possible to hit targets and budgets.
The rest of the whole system of government you mean.
There was a guided bomb program in the US, a few years back. I forget the designation. One of the contractors produced a brilliant design that was cheap, had lots of range and could even do things not on the spec. The other, competing design was shit.
The problem was that the second design was by the company that was supposed to win the contract. They cancelled the contract and re-competed it twice to try and getting the winning design to lose.
This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.
Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades
Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics
What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?
Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.
The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.
Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.
We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?
The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).
I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.
And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.
My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.
I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.
I think that would have been a "good luck with that idea" moment. I think a lot of English people are quite shocked to discover that while there are a small number of RC zealots in Ireland, the majority of Irish people see the Catholic Church as part of their identity but something to be ignored when inconvenient. A little how most southern European governments see the EU; the rules are only for the obeyance of fools.
Well I think that's the case now. I think Catholicism was rather more important to Irish people 100 years ago.
Even then, the idea of turning Ireland into a Catholic State wasn't what Collins had in mind, for instance. The Forward To The Past thing was the view of a minority of those who made up the immediate post independence political scene. If Dev hadn't ended up in charge, things might well have gone very differently.
Indeed, Fine Gael was the party which claimed the legacy of Collins in the Republic of Ireland and was more socially and economically liberal than the socially conservative, ultra Catholic and economically centrist Fianna Fail of De Valera.
Fine Gael also generally the more pro British of the 3 main Irish parties, as Collins had backed the Anglo Irish Treaty De Valera opposed and De Valera left Sinn Fein as it refused to even participate in the Dail in the new Free State
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
Ministers are accountable to parliament and the electorate. Public inquiries are not our method of choice for things like this.
Maybe yes. Maybe no. Some polling companies like Opinium compensate for the Don't Know effect Mike refers to, but they are also showing landslide Labour leads at the moment.
I think it’s elections like 1997 where usual so expected swing-back doesn’t happen, Mike’s d/k fail to vote on the day and HY’s If’s confirmed as If only.
and how to spot swingback won’t happen. Nothing from the pollsters or psephologists convince me they know how to spot it.
Swingback always happens, even in 1997.
What was the figure in 1997?
Between 1995 and 1997, the Conservatives' vote share rose by 6%.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
And that is not in dispute
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
It takes a spectacularly talented government to get into a fight with an Inquiry that it set up itself.
On the face of it it does seem a strange course to take but apparently the cabinet office is concerned about the provision of what's app information that is simply irrelevant and no doubt embarrassing
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
“It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing”
well they would say that wouldn’t they.
Meanwhile previous top civil servants, no longer being told what to do by the political masters are saying it’s a cover up, and non government lawyers are predicting government lose in court. Meanwhile UK media turns into a “fuckmule” of speculation, leaks, you may think that I couldn’t possibly comment - meaning this isn’t a decision taken lightly by Sunak, he desperately needs to buy himself some time before the truth comes out.
Cabinet Office say; "The request for unambiguously irrelevant material goes beyond the powers of the Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
Just you wait for information within to leak. Or rumours of what information is in the trawl to swirl.
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
It definitely comes out, but now it comes out in the worst possible way for Sunak, uncontrolled, unspun, and any upon unsuspecting afternoon, like when he’s on the other side of the world in the Bali or Hawaii junket.
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
Everyone is assuming that it is the politicians blocking this, on their own.
Given the results of the "Parties" enquiry in Downing Street, I can very easily see Civil Servants not wanting message groups they were a part of published.
I was told, a long while back, that some civil servants were up in arms because, during COVID, they were told to do A. They decided to B instead. The upset was that the ministers responsible were refusing to take responsibility for decision B.
Whether Rishi is covering for the Cabinet Office, or the Cabinet Office is covering for Rishi, or a bit of both, the information still needs to be disclosed fully.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
I think they’re more likely to spectacularly fuck up if they’re terrified to communicate.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
Is this a rare case of effective MoD procurement ?
Credit where credit is due. The UK programme to upgrade and increase the M270 GMLRS fleet to 71 launchers is well on track, on time and on budget. It’s an exemplar of a well run DE&S project. Extended range rockets will hit targets at 150 km while PrSM will initially reach 499 km and later 999 km. https://twitter.com/nicholadrummond/status/1664151551718375426
The rest of the department will be bloody furious at someone showing everyone that it is possible to hit targets and budgets.
The rest of the whole system of government you mean.
There was a guided bomb program in the US, a few years back. I forget the designation. One of the contractors produced a brilliant design that was cheap, had lots of range and could even do things not on the spec. The other, competing design was shit.
The problem was that the second design was by the company that was supposed to win the contract. They cancelled the contract and re-competed it twice to try and getting the winning design to lose.
Or the Gulf War 1 bunker buster. During that war, the US needed a deep penetrator munition. They got old artillery barrels, filled them with explosives (*), and lo and behold, they had a bunker-buster, developed quickly and cheaply. Later versions of the weapon used customised casings and were far more expensive.
"The GBU-28 is unique in that time between the finalized design being approved to its first use in combat test took only two weeks between the 13th and 27th of February 1991"
It takes a spectacularly talented government to get into a fight with an Inquiry that it set up itself.
On the face of it it does seem a strange course to take but apparently the cabinet office is concerned about the provision of what's app information that is simply irrelevant and no doubt embarrassing
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
Yes but. Who decides what is relevant and what isn't? There can't be a situation where an individual can simply assert that something is irrelevant and therefore not turned over.
Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.
It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.
It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to
(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia (b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.
According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.
'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?
Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?
You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.
Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'
It will.
The map will be rendered ob-solete.
Crimea a river
No need to be Volga.
When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.
Ossetia up for that one.
Kiev over will you?
Pskov yourself!
My stockpile of puns is running dangerously low. I think I will have to start Stalin (stallin')
It's only for my own Amur-sment at this point.
Well, I mustn't Minsk my words, so it really is time to go! Have a fine punning time everyone!
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
The line can only be drawn by the Inquiry
Do you realise how much information, and power, that gives the inquiry?
@christopherhope 20s 👀 Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it? This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
Because he replaced his phone and phone number in May 2021 when it was discovered that the number had been publicly available for 15 years and a number of people published the number.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
It takes a spectacularly talented government to get into a fight with an Inquiry that it set up itself.
On the face of it it does seem a strange course to take but apparently the cabinet office is concerned about the provision of what's app information that is simply irrelevant and no doubt embarrassing
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
Yes but. Who decides what is relevant and what isn't? There can't be a situation where an individual can simply assert that something is irrelevant and therefore not turned over.
Sir Humphrey, irritably, to Bernard: 'I need to know everything. How else can I judge whether or not I need to know it?'
I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.
This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.
Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.
Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.
I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.
Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.
The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.
I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.
Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.
How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?
Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.
It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.
Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.
Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.
Indeed, Sandpit speaks with all the authority of someone who lives 5 000 km away. My Trust has 8 MRI scanners and has a 24 hour service.
The limit to capacity is personell to operate them, and interpret the results, neither being helped by annual real terms paycuts, and loss of staff to places like the Sandpit on higher salaries.
There is also the small issue that scans are not the be all and end all. For appropriate investigation and interpretation there needs to be a detailed idea of what to look for. Scans are not some great fishing trip that produces a magic answer and treatment plan.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
If government ministers fuck up in spectacular fashion there must be a mechanism for holding them to account. Public Inquiry is our method of choice, and the inquiry must have access to the facts, including the communications.
And that is not in dispute
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
That is for Hallet to decide. You shouldn't have Johnson and Sunak marking their own homework.
FWIW. Sir Robin Butler agrees with you.
To the public it looks evasive on Sunak's part. Johnson has thrown him under the bus even though he has himself been furtively evasive himself. Lost phone etc.
Here's a solution to this thorny quandary. Don't use the same media account for work and pleasure. Plenty of others manage it on pain of discipline or even dismissal.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Not when they are mixing and matching business and pleasure platforms.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
How about a message like this:
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.
At what point in my life does the BBC offer me a presenting gig on a train documentary?
When do you expect to be a defeated Tory MP?
You have to be a defeated Tory Cabinet Minister and likely leadership contender and most watched defeat on election night, being a mere defeated Tory MP is not enough to get the training presenting and travel and history docs gig.
Here's a solution to this thorny quandary. Don't use the same media account for work and pleasure. Plenty of others manage it on pain of discipline or even dismissal.
It doesn't have to be pleasure; it could be work that is totally irrelevant to the Covid or the inquiry.
Comments
1) "Benjamin Netanyahu is demonstrably a crook, and a racist arsehole, who pursues disgusting, racist policies towards the Palestinians" - NOT A RACIST STATEMENT
2) "The Blood Libel must have some truth behind it." - RACIST
In order not to be anti-semitic, just criticise actual actions by actual people or actual groups. If anything starts with "all Jews..."
8s
Cabinet Office confirm they're defying the Covid Inquiry and launching a Judicial Review
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1664304336745250824
So 'English' not 'British.'
4m
🚨NEW Westminster Voting Intention
📈13pt Labour lead
🌹Lab 44 (-2)
🌳Con 31 (+1)
🔶LD 9 (=)
➡️Reform 5 (=)
🎗️SNP 3 (=)
🌍Gre 3 (=)
⬜️Other 5 (+1)
2,223 UK adults, 26-28 May
(chg from 19-21 May)
Unless you mean Henry VII.
1m
It is wide open now for Labour to say that it will release all information that Heather Hallett wants on the day after it wins the general election.
To say this is bad optics for the Conservative Government is a complete understatement.
Cabinet Office seeking judicial review
Edit: Too Slow
Support money was needed for Sunak’s whatever it takes Covid battle, but the question here is about the value for money spent. Who ultimately signed off the VIP lanes for example? And how it was splashed around on non covid things.
The highest tax take ever, the size of the borrowing and costs of its interest, are you blaming Truss for all the bad value for money, fraud and waste of the Chancellor Sunak years?
Inquiry. Individuals, junior officials, current and former Ministers and departments should not be required to provide material that is irrelevant to the Inquiry’s work."
it is for the inquiry, not the cabinet Office, to determine what material is relevant
*Ah, my coat*
Of course it's quite likely the enquiry will contest the application, but they've no obligation to do so.
In contrast, the enquiry has powers to compel the production of evidence - up to and including criminal sanctions.
And in the meantime, the 'just enough help' leads to many more Ukrainian deaths.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65782535
And yes, I know it's an inquiry, and we *should* be able to trust everyone on it. But it also seems like a very broad fishing attempt.
The day, perhaps in six years time when it’s all about getting Labour out of power, the Greens win two seats in the city, the headlines will be…
Greens Pair of Bristols 😇
"How are things at the Campaign for Freedom of Information?"
"I'm sorry, I can't talk about that"
It must be really bad for Sunak to push him to these lengths.
I think government ministers private communications should always be confidential.
No ifs no buts.
Then publicly disclosed in 20yr/25yrs.
We’re making government impossible.
Is this not being largely fuelled by Tory infighting?
All those who think Tories naturally get swingback, have they factored in the display of factional and personality score setting played out in public from here to General Election day?
Given the results of the "Parties" enquiry in Downing Street, I can very easily see Civil Servants not wanting message groups they were a part of published.
I was told, a long while back, that some civil servants were up in arms because, during COVID, they were told to do A. They decided to B instead. The upset was that the ministers responsible were refusing to take responsibility for decision B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_in_Ireland#/media/File:Ireland_1450.png
It was only the plantations under Tudor and Stuart Kings, Henry VIII making Ireland a Kingdom under his rule and ultimately the 1800 Act of Union that really saw proper British rule of the whole nation
It is easy to target Sunak as that is politics but into today's social media world I assume all kinds of unexpected consequences could flow not just for politicians but also civil servants and others
A judicial review is a way to define the provision of social media information to not only this enquiry but future ones too
It does not look good but the government's lawyers must have decided that unrelated privacy is a principle that needs testing
20s
👀
Boris Johnson has kept hold of his personal mobile phone from before May 2021 and has not surrendered it to the Covid-19 inquiry. What messages are on it?
This covers a 15 month period from the start of the pandemic in February 2020.
And there will be stuff that is totally irrelevant to the inquiry but also secret, important or salacious. And you're spreading the people who know about it out massively, including to people who might (shock! horror!) be anti-Tory.
Anything as broad as this trawl appears to be *will* lead to leaks. I hope I'm wrong about that, but that's politics.
There was a guided bomb program in the US, a few years back. I forget the designation. One of the contractors produced a brilliant design that was cheap, had lots of range and could even do things not on the spec. The other, competing design was shit.
The problem was that the second design was by the company that was supposed to win the contract. They cancelled the contract and re-competed it twice to try and getting the winning design to lose.
Fine Gael also generally the more pro British of the 3 main Irish parties, as Collins had backed the Anglo Irish Treaty De Valera opposed and De Valera left Sinn Fein as it refused to even participate in the Dail in the new Free State
Even the government agrees with me on that...
You said the enquiry must have access to the facts including communications but just where is the line to be drawn when those communications also include many irrelevant conversations
well they would say that wouldn’t they.
Meanwhile previous top civil servants, no longer being told what to do by the political masters are saying it’s a cover up, and non government lawyers are predicting government lose in court. Meanwhile UK media turns into a “fuckmule” of speculation, leaks, you may think that I couldn’t possibly comment - meaning this isn’t a decision taken lightly by Sunak, he desperately needs to buy himself some time before the truth comes out.
You end up with Theresa May-type characters proliferating.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: "Fancy organising a sanctions busting COVID party on my behalf?" "No probs, I'll sent an email to everyone at D. St."
Is that relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and yes it is.
WhatsApp conversation between Party A and Party B: " I need a big loan can you facilitate" "Yes, no problems".
Is it relevant to the enquiry? It should be for Hallet to decide, and no it isn't.
"The GBU-28 is unique in that time between the finalized design being approved to its first use in combat test took only two weeks between the 13th and 27th of February 1991"
(*) It was slightly more complex than that...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-28
Who decides what is relevant and what isn't?
There can't be a situation where an individual can simply assert that something is irrelevant and therefore not turned over.
Bozo being Bozo he also screwed up the transfer of WhatsApp messages from the old phone to his new one - which is why none prior to May 2021 exist.
This is old known news but it's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten it.
The limit to capacity is personell to operate them, and interpret the results, neither being helped by annual real terms paycuts, and loss of staff to places like the Sandpit on higher salaries.
There is also the small issue that scans are not the be all and end all. For appropriate investigation and interpretation there needs to be a detailed idea of what to look for. Scans are not some great fishing trip that produces a magic answer and treatment plan.
FWIW. Sir Robin Butler agrees with you.
To the public it looks evasive on Sunak's part. Johnson has thrown him under the bus even though he has himself been furtively evasive himself. Lost phone etc.
The implication is that the old messages are on the old phone, and have not been submitted.
Don't use the same media account for work and pleasure.
Plenty of others manage it on pain of discipline or even dismissal.
"I think our policy on A needs to be .... (200 words) ... this may impact our ability to react to B. Did you see the report in the Guardian on C? Can we get Joe to look at it please? Oh, and is there any news on the vaccines? We need some good news." where A, B and C are nothing to do with Covid.
The last part of that is relevant to the inquiry. The first parts are not, and may well include secret information on government policy. It might be redactable, but then you get the issues of who decides what is to be redacted and what is not.
Messages should not really contain information on different topics. But we all do it.