Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
Johnson thinks Sunak has more to hide (or more to lose) than he does. Who foresaw that?
His reputation is already trashed among those for whom it is capable of being trashed. Sunak still gets some grudging respect from people who could yet turn against him.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
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.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
Are the methodologies slightly different in that Yougov work from their records, while other companies ask what people voted in 2019, vulnerable to false recall?
And don't Omnisis already allocate DKs according to last vote?
Also DKs differ between male and females, though both are as likely to vote, and females more likely to vote Labour?
Overall, I suspect the swingback effect of the Tory DKs will be within the MOE of polls.
Not that this government is doing much to generate swingback, indeed the opposite!
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Boris Johnson is Helpful Bozza when it comes to handing over his Whatsapp messages and diaries like a good boy, but as Alexander Lebedev gets hit today with a Ukrainian government sanction for his allegedly close relationship with "the Kremlin", Angela Rayner accuses the former PM of having "form when it comes to protecting the Lebedevs".
Johnson thinks Sunak has more to hide (or more to lose) than he does. Who foresaw that?
His reputation is already trashed among those for whom it is capable of being trashed. Sunak still gets some grudging respect from people who could yet turn against him.
He’s adopting the Trumpian line that everyone is as bad as him, so it doesn’t matter ?
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Then subtract that number (the probability you'd assign) from 1 to get x, and calculate 1-(1-x)^n where n is a large positive integer. If for example the number is a footling 10% and n is 100, we get 0.99997343...
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Fairly confident. Cities are quite big targets, and they have a lot of nukes, and ICBMs to carry them. Even if they’ve now used a fair proportion of their intermediate range stuff.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Did he maintain his nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and would destroy western, and likely global, civilisation, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
In the US the debate is catastrophically polarised - Democrats fully in the "Affirmative Care" camp (where "the science is settled" FFS - anyone who writes that doesn't understand science) and the GOP who are pursuing a "stop it all" model. Both are wrong, although I think the GOP is doing less damage.
In the UK its been overwhelmingly women making the running - from across politics - but frequently left wing. The Tories sporadically venture into it (Badenoch is sound, Mordaunt not) and Labour are hopelessly tongue tied. Some of them have worked out that women don't have penises, others can't bring themselves to say so.
The victims?
Young (probably gay) kids with other mental health problems who have been sterilised and maimed for life, unnecessarily.
Women sports competitors who have been cheated out of titles, winnings and earnings by men who think they are women. In some cases they've been injured by them too.
Medics, who have been hounded out of jobs for saying "you can't change sex".
Trans people - who wanted to get on with their lives but been drawn into a toxic debate.
Presents the story so far going into the experience of Kathleen Stock, but doesn't touch the medical issues.
The GOP have moved on to banning drag acts, trying to roll back LGB rights and conspiracy theories about Michelle Obama being a man. I think they’re doing far more damage.
No-one has banned drag acts. They’ve banned drag acts from appearing in schools, in the same way as they’ve banned pornographic books (which Amazon describes as for 18+) from being in school libraries.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
-5%: missile doesn't explode but little flag pops out saying "BANG!", ACME Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote style.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Even if that somewhat optimistic assumption is truss, that’s a third of them still getting through.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Only takes one, and it doesn't need to hit the target. It's not like we'd be breathing a sigh of relief that they missed London and hit Abergele instead.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Even if that somewhat optimistic assumption is truss, that’s a third of them still getting through.
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.
You will not be surprised that I do not agree with you
It seems that Johnson has withheld information from the cabinet office as it only includes the period from May 21 when Johnson acquired a new phone and not before then
Of course you and others want Sunak compromised on this but maybe wait for more information first
That’s how you are dismissing my input and comment is it ? “MoonRabbit don’t have argument about principle or good government, you just want Sunak gone and a tax cutting Thatcherite government installed in lead up to election”.
I’ll be really polite here, and to you Felix for giving that a like as it’s a bit rude - and you too Ping for not having a clue about law on this, I am actually posting to explain how Sunak is acting against important matter of principle. He is trying to get away with breaking the law.
Firstly, whenever decisions are made by governments and civil servants, they are bound by laws to keep their decision making as records, so that enquiries and courts can understand the decision making. It doesn’t matter if it’s on what’s app groups, back of fag packets, restaurant napkins, if they have made a decision they need to keep their decisions and all conversations and evidence relevant to their decision making. It’s the law.
Secondly, the only way the enquiry the government has set up can work, it must be the head of enquiry who decides what is relevant or not from all the records they have asked to see, only the head of enquiry who can decide redactions before it becomes public - NOT THE PRIMEMINSTER DESPERATE TO HIDE TRUTH FROM THE VOTERS. You agree with this point?
The government have no grounds to be doing this, no argument whatsoever. Wether the cabinet secretary’s note book, the PMs diary, emails, WhatsApp’s, evidence supporting all actions taken and decisions made are the records legally bound to be kept and handed over to enquiries and courts so that justice, the justice that is bedrock of any decent law abiding democracy, can take place and be seen to take place.
This is the point of principle now under attack by Sunak and his supporters, and a hideous precedent if God help us they get away with this.
Correct me where wrong, please tell us on what grounds are you arguing and defending Sunak here 🤷♀️
Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
Are the methodologies slightly different in that Yougov work from their records, while other companies ask what people voted in 2019, vulnerable to false recall?
And don't Omnisis already allocate DKs according to last vote?
Also DKs differ between male and females, though both are as likely to vote, and females more likely to vote Labour?
Overall, I suspect the swingback effect of the Tory DKs will be within the MOE of polls.
Not that this government is doing much to generate swingback, indeed the opposite!
Indeed but OGH's hypothesis seems to me there is a pool of potential Conservative support in the big Don't Know numbers recorded by YouGov (note that pollster is currently recording the lowest Conservative vote share) and this will decamp en bloc back to the Conservatives in 2024.
He may be right - he has been more often than not - but other pollsters are not suggesting the pool is as big or have already discounted a party of it into the blue team - thus, an 18% YouGov lead is a 12-14% with R&W, Savanta (the highest Conservative vote share) and Techne to name but three.
One sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote switching Labour is 7.5% of the total electorate but Labour's lead is much bigger - they are getting support from other parties as well as from newer voters.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Fairly confident. Cities are quite big targets, and they have a lot of nukes, and ICBMs to carry them. Even if they’ve now used a fair proportion of their intermediate range stuff.
It depends if they launched just one or two as a demonstration or a salvo.
Ours work. I think theirs would have a high failure rate, so they'd have to fire a few and they'd be very vulnerable to a second strike.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Please say you don't think nuclear war is a zero sum game.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Can't be too careful.
Hacker: Are you saying that this nuclear defence system would stop all 192 Polaris missiles? Appleby: No, not all, virtually all, 97%. Hacker: That would still leave about... five bombs which would get through? Appleby: Precisely, a mere five. Hacker: Enough to obliterate Moscow, Leningrad, Minsk... Appleby: Yes, but that's about all!
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
Imagine they had actually done that and Boris had the same level of illness that he had from his (assumed!) naturally-occurring bout of COVID...
We kind of already know discussions like that were happening. To be honest it reflects our lack of understanding of the disease at that time and possibly some breakdown in science advice in March.
I'd be interested to know if science advisers warned against eat out to help out. That seems to be somewhere we drastically got the risks wrong and it also was clearly a Rishi policy brainwave.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Fairly confident. Cities are quite big targets, and they have a lot of nukes, and ICBMs to carry them. Even if they’ve now used a fair proportion of their intermediate range stuff.
It depends if they launched just one or two as a demonstration or a salvo.
Ours work. I think theirs would have a high failure rate, so they'd have to fire a few and they'd be very vulnerable to a second strike.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
That would be one hell of a second nuclear strike or conventional retaliation if it could completely knock out Russia's entire capability of hitting the enemy with any (more) strategic nukes.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
Imagine they had actually done that and Boris had the same level of illness that he had from his (assumed!) naturally-occurring bout of COVID...
We kind of already know discussions like that were happening. To be honest it reflects our lack of understanding of the disease at that time and possibly some breakdown in science advice in March.
I'd be interested to know if science advisers warned against eat out to help out. That seems to be somewhere we drastically got the risks wrong and it also was clearly a Rishi policy brainwave.
Oh, I'm sure they were. Not so much the virus itself but I remember the "let's get the politicians to take their COVID vaccine jabs live on TV". It'd only have taken one random serious allergic reaction to really screw that one up...
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Even if that somewhat optimistic assumption is truss, that’s a third of them still getting through.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Even if that somewhat optimistic assumption is truss, that’s a third of them still getting through.
Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
Are the methodologies slightly different in that Yougov work from their records, while other companies ask what people voted in 2019, vulnerable to false recall?
And don't Omnisis already allocate DKs according to last vote?
Also DKs differ between male and females, though both are as likely to vote, and females more likely to vote Labour?
Overall, I suspect the swingback effect of the Tory DKs will be within the MOE of polls.
Not that this government is doing much to generate swingback, indeed the opposite!
Indeed but OGH's hypothesis seems to me there is a pool of potential Conservative support in the big Don't Know numbers recorded by YouGov (note that pollster is currently recording the lowest Conservative vote share) and this will decamp en bloc back to the Conservatives in 2024.
He may be right - he has been more often than not - but other pollsters are not suggesting the pool is as big or have already discounted a party of it into the blue team - thus, an 18% YouGov lead is a 12-14% with R&W, Savanta (the highest Conservative vote share) and Techne to name but three.
One sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote switching Labour is 7.5% of the total electorate but Labour's lead is much bigger - they are getting support from other parties as well as from newer voters.
“Thus the latest YouGov has just 45% of this group saying Tory but a whopping 21% saying don’t know”
I know what you are saying, Mike is using just one pollster to make a point, that yougov stat is out of line with same one from other pollsters, this weakens the point.
The response from Mike could be he likes using tried and tested GE pollsters, not the newbies.
My question is the 45% figure looks low, if we add all the 21% onto it to get to say 65% - how does 65% by adding nearly all the don’t know to Tories compare with the 1997 figure of retention you shared a few weeks ago?
From my memory banks, 65% retention even with all 20% added back on is still smaller than 1997.
I'm sure already stated, but whats app works independently of any particular device.
The only way to get rid of messages is to physically delete them (which will leave a trail behind it) and even then chances are whats app have everything backed up on a cloud somewhere...
I cannot understand how this is possibly compliant with GDPR, it turns these privacy regulations in to a farce - IE Whatsapp can save all my private discussions forever but my garage cannot disclose the service history of our car...
Whats app is a terrible way to communicate about anything remotely sensitive. Definetly avoid being in any groups.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Let’s see
1) 25% on exploding on launch 2) 25% on staging failure 3) 25% on warhead release failing 4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
It should be noted that every one of those scenarios is a minor environmental disaster, to various degrees. Not as bad as a full-yield bang, but bad.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Please say you don't think nuclear war is a zero sum game.
The point is that the logic of Putin being left with no option but to use nukes because of losing in Ukraine doesn't hold true, and has already been tested when he was forced to withdraw from Kyiv.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
Are the methodologies slightly different in that Yougov work from their records, while other companies ask what people voted in 2019, vulnerable to false recall?
And don't Omnisis already allocate DKs according to last vote?
Also DKs differ between male and females, though both are as likely to vote, and females more likely to vote Labour?
Overall, I suspect the swingback effect of the Tory DKs will be within the MOE of polls.
Not that this government is doing much to generate swingback, indeed the opposite!
The ICM polls (and I mention them because they were about the only polls at the time doing Spiral of Silence) didn't really show any swing back in the run-up to 1997. They pretty much hit the right answer in summer 1995 and wobbled around it after that.
There are two ways of interpreting "Conservative last time, don't know now". One is that they're voters who will fall back into the blue box on the day, but don't want to say it out loud for now. The other is that they've voters who have broken up with their old party, but don't quite want to admit it to themselves yet. They might not vote Labour, but they might just sit this one out.
That balance between "return home" and "stay home" voters must be hard to poll, which is a shame because it's dead important.
Why aren't cricket commentators using the phrase "French cut" these days? I hope they haven't been told not to use it in case someone finds it insulting.
Why aren't cricket commentators using the phrase "French cut" these days? I hope they haven't been told not to use it in case someone finds it insulting.
Sounds to me like you're inclined to see a conspiracy behind the reason and to get upset about it, when the explanation may simply be that it's unclear what it means unless you already know, whereas once you know basic field positions you can figure out what is meant by other descriptions.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Fairly confident. Cities are quite big targets, and they have a lot of nukes, and ICBMs to carry them. Even if they’ve now used a fair proportion of their intermediate range stuff.
It depends if they launched just one or two as a demonstration or a salvo.
Ours work. I think theirs would have a high failure rate, so they'd have to fire a few and they'd be very vulnerable to a second strike.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
That would be one hell of a second nuclear strike or conventional retaliation if it could completely knock out Russia's entire capability of hitting the enemy with any (more) strategic nukes.
Trident II is specifically a second strike capable system. Death, taxes and the W88.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Edit: Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
This is really not an insoluble philosophical dilemma - if you ask someone to look into something so broad, they are going to need to see the irrelevant stuff to know what the relevant stuff is!
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
If Sunak won’t handover all government records an independent enquiry chair has asked for, for the chair to decide what is relevant or not, then why even the charade of an independent enquiry? Why doesn’t Sunak just save time and money and conduct it himself?
“It has been a really good enquiry into covid, we have learnt lots of really really very good lessons. There isn’t much more we can say on this matter now, actually, I have come here today to flag up the really good news we should all celebrate, the gilt markets have eased quite a bit in the last 24hrs actually, which shows the government is on course to deliver.”
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Reminds me uncomfortably of Johnson's antics in 2019, when the doctrine seemed to be that a Prime Minister could do whatever they liked because their role embodied the will of the people. So a judge literally can't contradict them.
Why aren't cricket commentators using the phrase "French cut" these days? I hope they haven't been told not to use it in case someone finds it insulting.
I’m guessing bowling a ‘Chinaman’ is verboten too.
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.
You will not be surprised that I do not agree with you
It seems that Johnson has withheld information from the cabinet office as it only includes the period from May 21 when Johnson acquired a new phone and not before then
Of course you and others want Sunak compromised on this but maybe wait for more information first
That’s how you are dismissing my input and comment is it ? “MoonRabbit don’t have argument about principle or good government, you just want Sunak gone and a tax cutting Thatcherite government installed in lead up to election”.
I’ll be really polite here, and to you Felix for giving that a like as it’s a bit rude - and you too Ping for not having a clue about law on this, I am actually posting to explain how Sunak is acting against important matter of principle. He is trying to get away with breaking the law.
Firstly, whenever decisions are made by governments and civil servants, they are bound by laws to keep their decision making as records, so that enquiries and courts can understand the decision making. It doesn’t matter if it’s on what’s app groups, back of fag packets, restaurant napkins, if they have made a decision they need to keep their decisions and all conversations and evidence relevant to their decision making. It’s the law.
Secondly, the only way the enquiry the government has set up can work, it must be the head of enquiry who decides what is relevant or not from all the records they have asked to see, only the head of enquiry who can decide redactions before it becomes public - NOT THE PRIMEMINSTER DESPERATE TO HIDE TRUTH FROM THE VOTERS. You agree with this point?
The government have no grounds to be doing this, no argument whatsoever. Wether the cabinet secretary’s note book, the PMs diary, emails, WhatsApp’s, evidence supporting all actions taken and decisions made are the records legally bound to be kept and handed over to enquiries and courts so that justice, the justice that is bedrock of any decent law abiding democracy, can take place and be seen to take place.
This is the point of principle now under attack by Sunak and his supporters, and a hideous precedent if God help us they get away with this.
Correct me where wrong, please tell us on what grounds are you arguing and defending Sunak here 🤷♀️
You do know that the courts demand is for only Johnson’s what's app messages etc to be released and is nothing to do with Sunak’s
Furthermore, the cabinet office have revealed that Johnson has only provided the what's app etc from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, but conveniently has not provided any messages previous to this date as he changed his phone
The person with questions to answer is Johnson, and it does surprise me that nobody seems to be able to recover these previous and relevant messages
It also seems the cabinet office are concerned for employees and others who could have wholly irrelevant information to the enquiry on their phones but could have other consequences for them if declared
Maybe the cabinet office is concerned about a failure on their part of a duty of care to these employees
As is often the case in controversial issues, they are not as straightforward as one would hope
My personal view is the judge should be the arbiter, but it seems there is so much information the risk of leaks is high and indeed we have already seen that today
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
The government's position seems to be that if they had things over it will immediately be all over the Times the next morning or something. Inquiries leak, but if they have so little faith in the people involved they should disband the inquiry now.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
The amount of data is such that it wouldn't just be *one* investigator, but a team - unless you want the report to come out before the heat-death of the universe (*). And it already looks as though there might have been a leak from somewhere in the inquiry chain.
We saw with WikiLeaks that politics trumps secrecy with some shits. And whilst the people at the top of the inquiry should be trustworthy, can that be said for all of them?
As ever in life, there's a balance to be struck. The devil is where that balance is.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I knew it was somehow Starmers and Labour's fault, but couldn't figure out how.
I broadly agree with Mike's ongoing take on the DKs. But it may well be that some of the 2019 CON voters were voting for Brexit without a usual tendency to vote at GEs.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
The inquiry isn’t going to release material to the public if it’s not relevant . Why on earth would anyone believe anything that comes out of no 10 given recent history . The judge should be allowed to decide what is or is not relevant .
The 'inquiry' may not. But can you guarantee there will not be leaks, given the vast scope of the data and the *very* political nature?
As it happens, I don't automatically believe anything coming out of No. 10. I also don't automatically disbelieve it, either. Do you automatically believe everything your political party says?
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
Every government also needs secrets; as do individuals. Again, there is a balance.
Uefa is investigating claims the referee due to officiate the Champions League final next week was a keynote speaker at an event organised by a far-right politician.
Szymon Marciniak, who also refereed the World Cup final, spoke at an event in Poland on Monday which was organised by Sławomir Mentzen.
Mentzen, the leader of the Confederation party, is known for launching the political slogan “We stand against Jews, gays, abortion, taxation and the European Union”. In 2021 he made international headlines as the producer of a beer named White IPA Matters, which mocked the Black Lives Matter movement.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Please say you don't think nuclear war is a zero sum game.
The point is that the logic of Putin being left with no option but to use nukes because of losing in Ukraine doesn't hold true, and has already been tested when he was forced to withdraw from Kyiv.
There is nothing logical in stating that because someone didn't do something in one particular circumstance, he will not do it under any other circumstance. Especially if that other circumstance is a threat to his political and probably personal survival.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Please say you don't think nuclear war is a zero sum game.
The point is that the logic of Putin being left with no option but to use nukes because of losing in Ukraine doesn't hold true, and has already been tested when he was forced to withdraw from Kyiv.
There are a number of reasons why Russia is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons:
(1) Even if it avoided retaliation from the West (which is far from certain), it's not clear how use of a nuclear weapon would help Russia achieve its goals
(2) China is implacably opposed to nuclear proliferation. It wants to be - and is well on the way to becoming - Asia's hegemon. But that is predicated on being the only nuclear power in the region. If nuclear weapons become the only way to ensure you are not invaded, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwan would all get them. That would be chillingly bad for Beijing.
(3) (And this is the big one:) What if Russia lobbed a bomb or two, and it didn't explode? This is far from an unlikely scenario. Nuclear weapons require a lot of expensive maintenance to keep working. Using a weapon, and it not working would be the worst of all worlds for Moscow.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
Excellent point.
We hope the police did look at Starmer’s WhatsApp’s. If he said “will be great to see you all. We’ll have a beer up and curry afterwards charged to MPs expenses.” Then the BeerGate enquiries were utterly botched by the police if they didn’t see that WhatsApp message.
Perhaps PBers and Daily Mail should ask to see Beergate reopened to get Starmer’s whats apps, so we can see justice has been done? But obviously wait till next April so they can spend the whole general election campaign asking, what is Starmer trying to hide?
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.
On the contrary, I think 'act like this is going to be read by the public' is a good way to run Government. We need high standards in public life.
It's a good baseline to work from. Of course we know politicians and governments seek ways around disclosing things, but that doesn't undermine the principal.
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
Actually many governments are arguing that private conversations should be available
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Only takes one, and it doesn't need to hit the target. It's not like we'd be breathing a sigh of relief that they missed London and hit Abergele instead.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
And did they? Because it's obvious that WhatsApp messages may have shown intention about that particular piss-up.
I don't know, that would have been up to the investigating detectives. If you don't believe the investigation was rigerous enough you need to address your complaint to Durham Constabulary not me.
Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
Every government also needs secrets; as do individuals. Again, there is a balance.
Your defence makes no sense. If there is WhatsApp evidence of criminality, for example PPE irregularities, surely you would like to know how your money was spent, what happened and who was involved. And if someone should be banged to rights they can't be allowed to withhold damning evidence against them.
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
You assume that the Russion ones are in a functioning state...not that I particularly want to find out.
I expect that if it came down to pushing the big red button, that a large %age of Russian missiles would simply fail to launch - many of those that did would fail in flight - and many of those that found their target would not explode. Lets say 5% effectiveness. Messy but recoverable.
Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
😆 You prefer Sunak and cabinet office stopping work to do all the sifting, instead of the enquiry employed to do the sifting?
Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
Moving away from such tedious matters as imminent nuclear annihilation to the important questions of moment.
Day One of the Derby meeting tomorrow and, heresy though this may be, the better day's racing.
The Oaks looks to be between three fillies from two stables and my idea of the winner is SOUL SISTER.
The Coronation Cup looks a serious race. My preference is for HURRICANE LANE to beat his younger rivals but it's a marginal choice at best and I'm not playing in that race.
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.
Would you trust this government to select relevant but damning information to be passed on? No you wouldn't.
No.
Would I have trusted Blair's government over Iraq to do so?
No.
Would I trust a future Starmer's government to?
No.
Do I 'trust' the inquiry not to leak information?
No.
And that's the problem. If you answer 'yes' to any of these questions, then you're either biased or a fool.
Remember the way the Guardian lauded the process they went through over Wikileaks? Only for two of their 'journalists' to release the information? That endangered a family member of mine, so I'm rather sensitive about this.
Well in that case we might as well can the COVID inquiry before it costs an absolute fortune and achieves nothing.
I suppose the protection of Johnson, Case and Sunak is more important than reviewing the nation's pandemic performance.
(Snip)
Don't be ridiculous; I'm not saying that. But can you see the counter argument; that there will be loads of information that is not needed by the inquiry, and the release of which could cause severe issues for individuals and perhaps the nation?
As with everything, it's a compromise. The question is where a reasonable compromise lies. My position is your "release everything!" position is unworkable and potentially damaging to the country.
Did Starmer give over *all* his messages to the police when the Currygate inquiry was going on?
Beergate was a significant potential criminal act by Starmer. Beergate required a very serious police investigation. If the police had demanded to see his WhatsApp messaging he would have hand them over otherwise the police could demand them via court order from the platform directly.
They can demand all they like whatsapp however is end to end encrypted and cannot hand them over. The fact you dont seem to comprehend that really makes your opinion on this null and void
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
I think the concepts of winning or losing in a nuclear war are somewhat academic.
Forget nukes for a minute. How confident do you think Russia would be that a missile fired at a Western city would hit the target?
Only takes one, and it doesn't need to hit the target. It's not like we'd be breathing a sigh of relief that they missed London and hit Abergele instead.
Unscheduled flight arrivals in Miensk. Rumours that Lukashenka has died.
What happens next there, a takeover of the western-looking moderates, or Putin getting a placeman in charge? Huge implications for Ukraine.
95% of Belarusians want the white-red-white flag and a democratic future. Any Russian place man is unlikely to survive for long. It will take a lot to provoke the Belarusians to violence, but it could happen. There is already a government in exile and in the Kaliniauski battalion now regiment, an army in exile too
Tikhanovskaya is in exile and has an 8 year prison sentence hanging over her so it's hard to see a route into the Palace of Independence from that starting point. If Batka (who has been a pain in VVP's dick for decades over his flexible loyalty) has megged it then surely his replacement will be somebody more Russia adjacent who is likely to throw the full military might of Belarus into the SMO like Kochanova or Golovchenko.
I was reading the thread earlier and didn't want to let this corker from Dura be forgotten.
'The full military might of Belarus' Aside from whether that is a good description of the Belarusian army it's far from clear whether they would agree to fight under a different leader. A march on Minsk might seem preferable to one on Kiev. Keep dreaming Dura.
Is it me or is Boris looking better than Rishi right now on the COVID hoo hah
"A source has told LBC 'chaotic' Covid papers from Boris Johnson, due to be handed to the Covid inquiry, consisted of 'random post-it notes & newspaper cuttings', writes @HenryRiley1"
"Please confirm whether in March 2020 (or around that period), you suggested to senior civil servants and advisors that you be injected with Covid-19 on television to demonstrate to the public that it did not pose a threat?"
What The Actual Fuck?????
Reports say Boris did say that at one point.
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
From May 2021. It's Dom C making the accusation, but I don't think it has been denied.
Mr Cummings accused Mr Johnson of playing down the threat of the pandemic, saying the Prime Minister regarded it as just another scare story.
He said Mr Johnson even suggested injecting himself with the virus on television to prove it was nothing to fear.
"The view of various officials inside Number 10 was if we have the Prime Minister chairing meetings and he just tells everyone 'this is swine flu, don't worry about it' and 'I'm going to get [Chief Medical Officer] Chris Whitty to inject me live on TV with coronavirus' ... that would not help," he said.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
It wouldn't need to be publicly released, and the inquiry chair (and advisers) can be empowered to make that call. At the least to justify why it cannot be taken into account.
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
That's a brilliant soundbite.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
Then the investigator keeps them secret. Someone has to decide if they’re secret or not.
Indeed. Just ask Baroness Hallett to review them, with an explanation from the Government why they regard each redaction as appropriate. If she accepts the redaction, then fair enough; if not, the inquiry should have access to the unredacted message.
Doesn't seem hard to me.
There might be a vast amount of data. Look at the amount of people - and the time - it tool for the Guardian and others to review even a part of the Wikileaks data.
And then look at what happened afterwards.
Er, we're talking about Johnson's WhatsApp messages, and only those that Johnson and/or HMG want redacted. Can't be many 1,000s, if that.
It is for the investigator to decide what is or is not relevant. Not the witness.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
Let’s cross our fingers that the High Court agrees.
Every country needs a system of justice and its people to see justice done. The government have set themselves against this principle.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
Every government also needs secrets; as do individuals. Again, there is a balance.
Your defence makes no sense. If there is WhatsApp evidence of criminality, for example PPE irregularities, surely you would like to know how your money was spent, what happened and who was involved. And if someone should be banged to rights they can't be allowed to withhold damning evidence against them.
Absolutely but at the same time irrelevant information from politicians and civil servants should be filtered out
You would expect the enquiry judge would do that, but as has been said there is so much to read through it would require a team and of course the risk of a leak of compromising information irrelevant to the enquiry increases, indeed we have seen leaks of questions already asked to Johnson
This is just a Russian propaganda line. They are in no position to threaten a world war.
If Ukraine joined NATO then on the basis an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all we would be at war with Russia the next day unless Russia had withdrawn from all Ukranian territory
That's not what Article 5 says. It wouldn't actually change much from the current position except it would mean we couldn't abandon Ukraine.
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
And if Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, the above suggests NATO would have to respond with nukes v Russia on a proportionate basis to maintain the security of the NATO area
No, it doesn't. If Russia launched a tactical nuke in Ukraine, NATO *could* respond with nukes.
But they also have many other options, especially given the apparent weakness of Russia's conventional military. Destroying all Russia's military in Ukraine being one other option. And yes, their airpower alone could do that. It would not win the war (airpower rarely, if ever, does), but it would a massive boost for the Ukrainians.
Destroy Russia's military in Ukraine with NATO airstrikes and we would be at war with Russia the next day anyway
Unless China somehow got involved on Russia's side, I'm confident that such a conflict would not go into the history books as World War Three. Russia is too weak to fight a prolonged war against the collective West.
Russia does have more active nukes than the US and China combined however.
Can you think of any reasons why the figure for Russia might not be accurate?
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Please say you don't think nuclear war is a zero sum game.
The point is that the logic of Putin being left with no option but to use nukes because of losing in Ukraine doesn't hold true, and has already been tested when he was forced to withdraw from Kyiv.
There is nothing logical in stating that because someone didn't do something in one particular circumstance, he will not do it under any other circumstance. Especially if that other circumstance is a threat to his political and probably personal survival.
Do you believe that using nuclear weapons in those circumstances would aid his political and personal survival?
You seem to think that it would be like Japan in 1945: drop a couple of nuclear bombs and Ukraine would capitulate and invite in an occupying force. That would not happen.
Comments
Vaguely on-topic, as this thread prepares to join the choir invisible (I suspect):
Redfield & Wilton numbers are 53% Conservative, 16% Labour, 14% Don't Know and 7% Reform.
Omnisis last week had 57% Conservative, 17% Labour, 12% Don't Know and 6% Reform
Techne last week had 59% Conservative, 13% Labour, 10% Don't Know and 8% Won't Vote
You pays your money, you chooses which poll you believe. The point is to assume a) there are 21% of 2019 Conservative voters who Don't Know and b) they will all swing back behind the Conservatives is two assumptions too far based on the data I'm seeing.
IF you think YouGov is the Gold Standard, fine - the Labour lead, to this observer, looks to be 12-15 points currently but we've had no fieldwork polling released since the weekend which is an eternity. The week's Omnisis and Techne will be indicative of any shift caused by the week's events which wouldn't be huge (thus far).
In any case, if you think Russia could win a nuclear war and destroying their military in Ukraine is enough of a casus belli, why have they not used nukes already?
Besides, it's not generally suggested any private communications should be immediately and always accessible as a matter of course. Even public communications might be accessible but that doesn't mean automatic immediate release.
But if you are undertaking inquiries the inquiry has to see what went on and what was said, and if you have intermingled communications it is absurd to suggest the inquiry must simply accept a ruling that X is relevant and Y is not. The inquiry at least has to make that call, otherwise they are not inquiring, they are just looking at pre-approved information which may well direct them to a certain direction, intentionally or otherwise.
And don't Omnisis already allocate DKs according to last vote?
Also DKs differ between male and females, though both are as likely to vote, and females more likely to vote Labour?
Overall, I suspect the swingback effect of the Tory DKs will be within the MOE of polls.
Not that this government is doing much to generate swingback, indeed the opposite!
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/uk-news/2023/06/01/russian-billionaire-alexander-lebedev-on-ukraine-sanctions-list/
I still want that list of everyone who went to Chequers during Covid restrictions.
While slightly unlikely, it might even be true.
1) 25% on exploding on launch
2) 25% on staging failure
3) 25% on warhead release failing
4) 25% on the Tritium capsule being full of laughing gas.
Hmmmmm
Even if they’ve now used a fair proportion of their intermediate range stuff.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/penguin-random-house-pen-america-sue-banned-books/story?id=99392008 Florida book banning example: these are not pornographic books.
So, Sandpit, why are you saying things that aren’t true?
I’ll be really polite here, and to you Felix for giving that a like as it’s a bit rude - and you too Ping for not having a clue about law on this, I am actually posting to explain how Sunak is acting against important matter of principle. He is trying to get away with breaking the law.
Firstly, whenever decisions are made by governments and civil servants, they are bound by laws to keep their decision making as records, so that enquiries and courts can understand the decision making. It doesn’t matter if it’s on what’s app groups, back of fag packets, restaurant napkins, if they have made a decision they need to keep their decisions and all conversations and evidence relevant to their decision making. It’s the law.
Secondly, the only way the enquiry the government has set up can work, it must be the head of enquiry who decides what is relevant or not from all the records they have asked to see, only the head of enquiry who can decide redactions before it becomes public - NOT THE PRIMEMINSTER DESPERATE TO HIDE TRUTH FROM THE VOTERS. You agree with this point?
The government have no grounds to be doing this, no argument whatsoever. Wether the cabinet secretary’s note book, the PMs diary, emails, WhatsApp’s, evidence supporting all actions taken and decisions made are the records legally bound to be kept and handed over to enquiries and courts so that justice, the justice that is bedrock of any decent law abiding democracy, can take place and be seen to take place.
This is the point of principle now under attack by Sunak and his supporters, and a hideous precedent if God help us they get away with this.
Correct me where wrong, please tell us on what grounds are you arguing and defending Sunak here 🤷♀️
He may be right - he has been more often than not - but other pollsters are not suggesting the pool is as big or have already discounted a party of it into the blue team - thus, an 18% YouGov lead is a 12-14% with R&W, Savanta (the highest Conservative vote share) and Techne to name but three.
One sixth of the 2019 Conservative vote switching Labour is 7.5% of the total electorate but Labour's lead is much bigger - they are getting support from other parties as well as from newer voters.
Ours work. I think theirs would have a high failure rate, so they'd have to fire a few and they'd be very vulnerable to a second strike.
It's one reason Putin hasn't crossed the line on this (and because he's been told in no uncertain terms that China would pull the economic rug, and the US would launch a massive conventional retaliation and destroy his forces).
Hacker: Are you saying that this nuclear defence system would stop all 192 Polaris missiles?
Appleby: No, not all, virtually all, 97%.
Hacker: That would still leave about... five bombs which would get through?
Appleby: Precisely, a mere five.
Hacker: Enough to obliterate Moscow, Leningrad, Minsk...
Appleby: Yes, but that's about all!
I'd be interested to know if science advisers warned against eat out to help out. That seems to be somewhere we drastically got the risks wrong and it also was clearly a Rishi policy brainwave.
I know what you are saying, Mike is using just one pollster to make a point, that yougov stat is out of line with same one from other pollsters, this weakens the point.
The response from Mike could be he likes using tried and tested GE pollsters, not the newbies.
My question is the 45% figure looks low, if we add all the 21% onto it to get to say 65% - how does 65% by adding nearly all the don’t know to Tories compare with the 1997 figure of retention you shared a few weeks ago?
From my memory banks, 65% retention even with all 20% added back on is still smaller than 1997.
Whats app is a terrible way to communicate about anything remotely sensitive.
Definetly avoid being in any groups.
Ministers, ex-Ministers, civil servants etc are all witnesses here. Not investigators.
There are two ways of interpreting "Conservative last time, don't know now". One is that they're voters who will fall back into the blue box on the day, but don't want to say it out loud for now. The other is that they've voters who have broken up with their old party, but don't quite want to admit it to themselves yet. They might not vote Labour, but they might just sit this one out.
That balance between "return home" and "stay home" voters must be hard to poll, which is a shame because it's dead important.
I knew it as the Chinese Cut for a start.
Of course, I would not do so in only one word.
What if the data also includes (say) matters of national security irrelevant to Covid?
To have to take it on faith, however, has the effect of rendering everything they look at pointless, as they have to trust no one in government has even inadvertently covered up something important.
Edit: Think about it - "That redacted bit just above the relevant part included completely irrelevant national security information" "How do we know that it is true?"
This is really not an insoluble philosophical dilemma - if you ask someone to look into something so broad, they are going to need to see the irrelevant stuff to know what the relevant stuff is!
“It has been a really good enquiry into covid, we have learnt lots of really really very good lessons. There isn’t much more we can say on this matter now, actually, I have come here today to flag up the really good news we should all celebrate, the gilt markets have eased quite a bit in the last 24hrs actually, which shows the government is on course to deliver.”
The apple didn't fall far from the tree, did he?
Named after Ellis Achong IIRC.
Furthermore, the cabinet office have revealed that Johnson has only provided the what's app etc from May 21 when he announced the enquiry, but conveniently has not provided any messages previous to this date as he changed his phone
The person with questions to answer is Johnson, and it does surprise me that nobody seems to be able to recover these previous and relevant messages
It also seems the cabinet office are concerned for employees and others who could have wholly irrelevant information to the enquiry on their phones but could have other consequences for them if declared
Maybe the cabinet office is concerned about a failure on their part of a duty of care to these employees
As is often the case in controversial issues, they are not as straightforward as one would hope
My personal view is the judge should be the arbiter, but it seems there is so much information the risk of leaks is high and indeed we have already seen that today
We saw with WikiLeaks that politics trumps secrecy with some shits. And whilst the people at the top of the inquiry should be trustworthy, can that be said for all of them?
As ever in life, there's a balance to be struck. The devil is where that balance is.
(*) I exaggerate. Slightly.
I knew that you or BigG would explain.
He will not gain by anybody else's loss though.
If there is any belief in fairness and democracy at all left at the Daily Mail, tomorrows front page needs to be the mug shots of Sunak and his cabinet, with the headline - enemies of the people.
As it happens, I don't automatically believe anything coming out of No. 10. I also don't automatically disbelieve it, either. Do you automatically believe everything your political party says?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/01/sorry-sharon-but-im-giving-up-on-waitrose/
Szymon Marciniak, who also refereed the World Cup final, spoke at an event in Poland on Monday which was organised by Sławomir Mentzen.
Mentzen, the leader of the Confederation party, is known for launching the political slogan “We stand against Jews, gays, abortion, taxation and the European Union”. In 2021 he made international headlines as the producer of a beer named White IPA Matters, which mocked the Black Lives Matter movement.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/01/champions-league-final-referee-spoke-at-event-with-far-right-leader
Doesn't seem hard to me.
(1) Even if it avoided retaliation from the West (which is far from certain), it's not clear how use of a nuclear weapon would help Russia achieve its goals
(2) China is implacably opposed to nuclear proliferation. It wants to be - and is well on the way to becoming - Asia's hegemon. But that is predicated on being the only nuclear power in the region. If nuclear weapons become the only way to ensure you are not invaded, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwan would all get them. That would be chillingly bad for Beijing.
(3) (And this is the big one:) What if Russia lobbed a bomb or two, and it didn't explode? This is far from an unlikely scenario. Nuclear weapons require a lot of expensive maintenance to keep working. Using a weapon, and it not working would be the worst of all worlds for Moscow.
We hope the police did look at Starmer’s WhatsApp’s. If he said “will be great to see you all. We’ll have a beer up and curry afterwards charged to MPs expenses.” Then the BeerGate enquiries were utterly botched by the police if they didn’t see that WhatsApp message.
Perhaps PBers and Daily Mail should ask to see Beergate reopened to get Starmer’s whats apps, so we can see justice has been done? But obviously wait till next April so they can spend the whole general election campaign asking, what is Starmer trying to hide?
cf Spain
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/26/leaked-document-shows-spain-is-fully-on-board-with-the-eu-commissions-plan-to-criminalize-encryption/
And then look at what happened afterwards.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1664330633290588165?t=nOpLNkMiVvZJPqvFkl2ITA&s=19
Is that a failing of Boris, or the government scientists rubbish for not making the seriousness clear enough to him nearly quickly enough.
He is fine apparently
Again.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1664344753847017496?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Day One of the Derby meeting tomorrow and, heresy though this may be, the better day's racing.
The Oaks looks to be between three fillies from two stables and my idea of the winner is SOUL SISTER.
The Coronation Cup looks a serious race. My preference is for HURRICANE LANE to beat his younger rivals but it's a marginal choice at best and I'm not playing in that race.
'The full military might of Belarus' Aside from whether that is a good description of the Belarusian army it's far from clear whether they would agree to fight under a different leader. A march on Minsk might seem preferable to one on Kiev. Keep dreaming Dura.
But seriously: you've never used a post-it note?
Mr Cummings accused Mr Johnson of playing down the threat of the pandemic, saying the Prime Minister regarded it as just another scare story.
He said Mr Johnson even suggested injecting himself with the virus on television to prove it was nothing to fear.
"The view of various officials inside Number 10 was if we have the Prime Minister chairing meetings and he just tells everyone 'this is swine flu, don't worry about it' and 'I'm going to get [Chief Medical Officer] Chris Whitty to inject me live on TV with coronavirus' ... that would not help," he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-26/dominic-cummings-fronts-parliamentary-inquiry-brexit-covid-19/100168426
The whole thing was some kind of fever dream, wasn't it?
He sure is a wiley negotiator for someone due for the knackers yard!
It’s excruciating to watch.
Don’t fall into the same trap, bigG.
Take care of yourself. Falls are a big risk for everyone, once we’re in our 70’s+.
Sorry if I’m being a bit personal, there. I’m aware of the risk, particularly, due to an elderly relative.
You would expect the enquiry judge would do that, but as has been said there is so much to read through it would require a team and of course the risk of a leak of compromising information irrelevant to the enquiry increases, indeed we have seen leaks of questions already asked to Johnson
It is a mess but then that sums up covid
You seem to think that it would be like Japan in 1945: drop a couple of nuclear bombs and Ukraine would capitulate and invite in an occupying force. That would not happen.