Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Starmer dwarfs Sunak on the leadership front – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,784
edited June 2023 in General
Starmer dwarfs Sunak on the leadership front – politicalbetting.com

Starmer vs Sunak (4 June):Starmer leads on EVERY SINGLE leadership characteristic polled, including:Can bring British ppl together (47% | 29%)Can build a strong economy (42% | 36%)Is a strong leader (38% | 33%)Can work well with foreign leaders (40% | 38%) pic.twitter.com/mulFDlkJQq

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    First like Starmer.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,240
    Second like Cincinnati.
  • Options
    DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,791
    SKS fans etc etc etc.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law.
    ------
    "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:

    'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'

    Model of the worse case attached.

    SOURCE: https://cornucopia.se/2022/10/worst-case-modelling-for-nova-kakhovka-dam-break/


    https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1665940031381594112?s=20
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,620

    Second like Cincinnati.

    I don't know about that...


  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,156
    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,147
    Still amazed by the figures showing that California has lost half a million people over the last two years.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    edited June 2023

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,995
    .

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave...

    Along with PB Tories.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,807
    Andy_JS said:

    Still amazed by the figures showing that California has lost half a million people over the last two years.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222

    For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,995
    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,968
    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,240
    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Still amazed by the figures showing that California has lost half a million people over the last two years.

    https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA/PST045222

    For lower taxes it seems that many Americans are willing to live in the most dreadful places
    Cheaper housing more than lower taxes by some accounts.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    Pro_Rata said:

    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?

    In previous months (especially during the Kherson attacks), I saw both being quoted. I.e. the reservoir dropping being annoying but not critical, to it being disastrous.

    Since the Russians are in charge of the power station, sadly I'd veer towards the latter.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,240
    edited June 2023
    Happy not quite 80th anniversary of D-Day. Last night's ITV documentary, Vicky McClure: My Grandad's War, was surprisingly not bad, and can be downstreamed from ITVx. PB trolls might have been involved since it refers to the "National Socialist Party" and Grandad turned down a contract with Leeds United in favour of butchery with the Co-op.
    https://www.itv.com/watch/vicky-mcclure-my-grandads-war/10a3075
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,156
    Nigelb said:

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    The appointment was quite rightly looked at by ACOBA.
    Idiots like Hodges had condemned her in advance.
    And it looks like the Cabinet Office went overboard on the judge/jury/executioner bit, rather than leaving it all to ACOBA.

    I'm beginning to wonder if being a Royal flunkey, no matter how intelligent or capable, sets up the wrong attitudes to be Cabinet Secretary in a democracy.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    The thing about political betting is to distinguish what you think will happen from what you want to happen.
    I want a majority Government - but I do not think SKS will achieve one, so I have bet accordingly.

    If you are convinced SKS is rubbish, you are going to lose a lot of money IMHO
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    It sniffed a bit. But not more than many other appointments.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    edited June 2023

    Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law.
    ------
    "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:

    'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'

    Model of the worse case attached.

    SOURCE: https://cornucopia.se/2022/10/worst-case-modelling-for-nova-kakhovka-dam-break/


    https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1665940031381594112?s=20

    Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.

    Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSb3JWv3bMs

    The Tories are in trouble. How will they come back?
  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,924

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    A spectacular way to destroy her reputation as an independent campaigner on human rights. Up till then she’d claimed to be non partisan. IIRC she whined a couple of times that she wasn’t being invited as a talking head on various TV news shows, any more.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Well, for me the big red flag for things about to go horribly wrong for Russia is the stuff coming out of the Wagner Group chap.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,445
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    The Russian mentality of "if I can't have it, you can't have it either", writ large.

    The international community will just make sure that Ukraine is rebuilt so as to be a shining beacon of how shitty its Russian neighbour looks in comparison.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,257

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    When whataboutery is all that is left you know the Tories are in deep trouble. Not even the fan club are actively championing the policies let alone the people involved. All that is left is whataboutery.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
    You might have a point if Starmer had appointed Shami.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,924

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Well, for me the big red flag for things about to go horribly wrong for Russia is the stuff coming out of the Wagner Group chap.
    I think that he is a completely unreliable source. The real evidence of Russian weakness is that he is still alive.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,240

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Starmer pledged to resign if issued with an FPN over Currygate. That indicates either bravado or certainty about the law.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    As I understand it, this will stuff up irrigation of farm land in Crimea and affect the general water supply there. IIRC the Russians claimed that the Ukrainians reducing the level/water flow to Crimea was one of the reasons they invaded.

    Sounds like the Russians are giving up the idea of holding Crimea.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,592

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    That’s a quite different situation and seems like a rather desperate line of whataboutery. And if one is going to attack Labour on appointments to the Lords, that’s not territory where the Conservatives come out looking good, is it?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,445
    The obvious response by Ukraine is to finish the job on the Crimean Bridge.

    And sink the ferries too.

    They have all the weaponry needed.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,425

    Pro_Rata said:

    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?

    In previous months (especially during the Kherson attacks), I saw both being quoted. I.e. the reservoir dropping being annoying but not critical, to it being disastrous.

    Since the Russians are in charge of the power station, sadly I'd veer towards the latter.
    Does this discussion answer the question?

    https://twitter.com/Marslauncher/status/1665908398225850368
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,352

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    The Russian mentality of "if I can't have it, you can't have it either", writ large.
    I wonder if this is the best way of motivating all those Russian conscripts to sacrifice their lives for every inch of Ukrainian soil when faced with the oncoming storm.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,592

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    tlg86 said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?

    In previous months (especially during the Kherson attacks), I saw both being quoted. I.e. the reservoir dropping being annoying but not critical, to it being disastrous.

    Since the Russians are in charge of the power station, sadly I'd veer towards the latter.
    Does this discussion answer the question?

    https://twitter.com/Marslauncher/status/1665908398225850368
    Thanks. Though ISTR that the power station was restarted recently - although that might have been another one in Ukraine?
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 25,240

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    I'm struggling to see the parallel with Sue Gray or Ed Llewellyn. Look squirrel, as Plato used to say.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,592

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
    Was Shami a top civil servant? Was she any sort of civil servant? Did she come under the remit of ACOBA?
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    That’s a quite different situation and seems like a rather desperate line of whataboutery. And if one is going to attack Labour on appointments to the Lords, that’s not territory where the Conservatives come out looking good, is it?
    Why is it different?

    And yes, the appointment system is cr@p. But that's a bit of your own whataboutery... ;)
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,445

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 115,206
    PBers may remember I mentioned in 2021 pretty much every UK bank decided to stop their customers use Binance, there was a reason.

    The price of Bitcoin plunged after the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange and its founder were accused of a “web of deception” by US regulators.

    The largest crypto token lost more than 3pc to fall below £21,000 as Binance and its chief executive Changpeng Zhao faced allegations of misusing investor funds, operating as an unregistered exchange and violating a slew of US securities laws.

    The lawsuit filed by the SEC lists thirteen charges against the crypto trading platform — including mingling and diverting customer assets to an entity Mr Zhao owned called Sigma Chain.

    The charges echo accusations levelled at the second largest cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, and its founder Sam Bankman-Fried after its collapse last year.

    SEC chairman Gary Gensler in a written statement that Zhao and Binance “engaged in an extensive web of deception, conflicts of interest, lack of disclosure, and calculated evasion of the law”.

    He added: “The public should beware of investing any of their hard-earned assets with or on these unlawful platforms.”

    In a social media post, Binance said that it has been cooperating with the SEC’s investigation but said that the agency “chose to act unilaterally and litigate.”


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/06/06/ftse-100-markets-live-news-crypto-binance-live/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,924

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
    That's interesting thanks; but even with machinery, it's hard to see how a fall in the area under cultivation from 130,000 hectares to just 14,000 leads to crop yields increasing by 1.5 times - unless they were mahooseively inefficient.

    This may be just Russian figures being Russian figures...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,995

    Pro_Rata said:

    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?

    In previous months (especially during the Kherson attacks), I saw both being quoted. I.e. the reservoir dropping being annoying but not critical, to it being disastrous.

    Since the Russians are in charge of the power station, sadly I'd veer towards the latter.
    Who knows what they will do ?
    FWIW a Ukraine spokesman on R4 thought there should be no immediate danger to the plant.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,968

    The obvious response by Ukraine is to finish the job on the Crimean Bridge.

    And sink the ferries too.

    They have all the weaponry needed.

    Depends what way b they think traffic will be going over it.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,956

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
    Was Shami a top civil servant? Was she any sort of civil servant? Did she come under the remit of ACOBA?
    No, no and no. But that avoids the central point: the *utter coincidence* that Shami cleared the party, and she then gets ennobled. Labour have form for exactly this: "give me useful results from your inquiry and we'll help you."

    Again, look at the conditional I put in my statement. That's important.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,253
    Nigelb said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Question: is Enerhodar's cooling water on or upstream from the dam's artificial lake?

    In previous months (especially during the Kherson attacks), I saw both being quoted. I.e. the reservoir dropping being annoying but not critical, to it being disastrous.

    Since the Russians are in charge of the power station, sadly I'd veer towards the latter.
    Who knows what they will do ?
    FWIW a Ukraine spokesman on R4 thought there should be no immediate danger to the plant.
    Possibly not from the dam, but if the Russians have blown that up I’d wonder if they planned to blow up the nuclear plant too.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
    That's interesting thanks; but even with machinery, it's hard to see how a fall in the area under cultivation from 130,000 hectares to just 14,000 leads to crop yields increasing by 1.5 times - unless they were mahooseively inefficient.

    This may be just Russian figures being Russian figures...
    There was a good report, a while back, on how the autarkic plans for the Russian economy failed. Which is why so much critical infrastructure is dependent on components from the West.

    It also detailed the general bullshitting about economic matters that has been going on for years.
  • Options
    Penddu2Penddu2 Posts: 616
    Russians have clearly decided to blow the dam to block a secondary axis of the Ukrainian Counter Offensive - they can now redirect all of their troops in western Kherson to the main axis in Zaparozhia. I now think they will blow up Zaporizhia Nuclear power plant and use that as justiofication to withdraw all troops back to Donbass. The mother of all surrenders while salting the erath behind them.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
    From what I see, it looks as if the East Bank is lower lying than the West, so it is mostly the Russian side that will be flooded.

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665957716202868737?t=OPLqFl6ikNyuY8h37YjP8w&s=19
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    Nigelb said:

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Has anyone (apart from Boris and cronies) seriously disputed her findings ?
    They appear to have been fairly straightforward matters of fact.

    If you distrust her, then by all means dispute the enquiry. But even then, why should she not take the appointment ?
    My comments are in relation to why it was perfectly reasonable to think it was sniffy *then*. If she's been cleared, fair enough.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,253
    Penddu2 said:

    Russians have clearly decided to blow the dam to block a secondary axis of the Ukrainian Counter Offensive - they can now redirect all of their troops in western Kherson to the main axis in Zaparozhia. I now think they will blow up Zaporizhia Nuclear power plant and use that as justiofication to withdraw all troops back to Donbass. The mother of all surrenders while salting the erath behind them.

    If they do that they’ve definitely given up on Crimea, given it would presumably irradiate its only realistic supply of drinking water.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
    That's interesting thanks; but even with machinery, it's hard to see how a fall in the area under cultivation from 130,000 hectares to just 14,000 leads to crop yields increasing by 1.5 times - unless they were mahooseively inefficient.

    This may be just Russian figures being Russian figures...
    There was a good report, a while back, on how the autarkic plans for the Russian economy failed. Which is why so much critical infrastructure is dependent on components from the West.

    It also detailed the general bullshitting about economic matters that has been going on for years.
    There's a very interesting book called 'Red Plenty' by Francis Spufford. It's a fictionalised account of Russia in the 1950s and 60s, and the way they were lying to themselves about their output. In fact, the entire system rewarded lying about output.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/red-plenty-francis-spufford

    There are also rumours that China's economy is also gravely overstated, for similar reasons...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,995

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    Answer - it was piss poor.
    And completely irrelevant to this case.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,592

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    That’s a quite different situation and seems like a rather desperate line of whataboutery. And if one is going to attack Labour on appointments to the Lords, that’s not territory where the Conservatives come out looking good, is it?
    Why is it different?

    And yes, the appointment system is cr@p. But that's a bit of your own whataboutery... ;)
    How is it the same? Gray was a top civil servant, so there are concerns about what that means when she moves to another job. These are handled by ACOBA. She is moving to a job where she will be employed by the Labour Party. ACOBA have now looked at the situation and issued a ruling that the parties are happy to abide by.

    Chakrabati was not a civil servant. She worked in the third sector. She was asked to lead a report on Labour. She was subsequently appointed to the Lords, where she now sits, receiving a salary for life, but from the Lords, not from the Labour Party. All this, of course, was under a different Labour leadership.

    The two women’s initial situations are different. Their final roles are different. The rules and oversight surrounding their situations are different. They are, OK, both women who have a relationship with the Labour Party. Their first names also begin with the letter S, I guess. They both worked on reports, but they were reports of a very different nature and form.

    I think what happened with Chakrabati looked bad. Both Labour and the Conservatives have, undeniably, done various Bad Things over the years. I don’t think this Chakrabati=Gray argument is going to sway the election result. From a political betting point of view, it’s a complete irrelevance. The Tories may try to attack Labour over Gray again, but I rather suspect reminding voters of Partygate is an unwise move.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,995

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
    That's interesting thanks; but even with machinery, it's hard to see how a fall in the area under cultivation from 130,000 hectares to just 14,000 leads to crop yields increasing by 1.5 times - unless they were mahooseively inefficient.

    This may be just Russian figures being Russian figures...
    There was a good report, a while back, on how the autarkic plans for the Russian economy failed. Which is why so much critical infrastructure is dependent on components from the West.

    It also detailed the general bullshitting about economic matters that has been going on for years.
    There's a very interesting book called 'Red Plenty' by Francis Spufford. It's a fictionalised account of Russia in the 1950s and 60s, and the way they were lying to themselves about their output. In fact, the entire system rewarded lying about output.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/red-plenty-francis-spufford

    There are also rumours that China's economy is also gravely overstated, for similar reasons...
    China at least has the reality check of massive international trade. All that stuff we buy that's made in China seems uninvented to me.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,897

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Why does it need to be an either/or? I want to be very clear the Big_G is neither - but he is prone to influence by them. On this one I was trying to kindly suggest that he had been sipping the GBeebies Koolaid again.

    But I understand - the Tories are deliberately throwing dust into the air to obscure things. The Gray report was lauded as exonerating Johnson by the same people who later decried it for being biased. If it was the stitch-up job they claim, then the stitch-up was exonerating the man.

    Its the same as government vs government-appointed Covid enquiry. They want to change its remit because its insisting on investigating Covid - not what they envisaged a Covid Enquiry to do. So no you can't see our WhatsApp messages as they are irrelevant. As the ones they tried to hide about the Everard vigil policing which was totally relevant. And as Johnson hands over all he has including the allegedly locked phone which has the rest. They're taking themselves to court to protect Johnson's right to privacy which he has given up.

    So clearly as the Borisgraph printed yesterday, the real scandal is that we locked down at all...
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    Nah, it was okay then because it was a Tory that did it - that was the actual response I got when I pointed this out at the time.
    A question: what is your view on Shami Chakrabarti's inquiry to anti-Semitism in Labour back in 2016, and her subsequent Labour peerage?
    White wash.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,933

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Good morning

    You may be surprised but I agree with your comments

    It was correct beergate was investigated and reviewed by Durham Police and on Sue Gray, I have consistently affirmed her report on Johnson was fair and indeed possibly too fair

    The question was whether she was approached properly and the decision to impose 6 months gardening leave seems reasonable in the circumstances
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    Siri, show me what "premeditated" looks like.....

    Prior to destroying the dam, Russians raised the water level of the reservoir to a historic record high by restricting outflow by keeping most gates closed to maximize damage to Ukraine from the flooding



    https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1665971219643138049?s=20
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
    From what I see, it looks as if the East Bank is lower lying than the West, so it is mostly the Russian side that will be flooded.

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665957716202868737?t=OPLqFl6ikNyuY8h37YjP8w&s=19
    Yes, but the Russians won't need those positions - or as many of them - if they've made any attack over the Dnipro nearly impossible. My *assumption* is that there will be so much boggy land, mud and debris that any bridging or landing via boats would be much much more difficult now.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,425
    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

    My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,956
    edited June 2023

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
    Was Shami a top civil servant? Was she any sort of civil servant? Did she come under the remit of ACOBA?
    No, no and no. But that avoids the central point: the *utter coincidence* that Shami cleared the party, and she then gets ennobled. Labour have form for exactly this: "give me useful results from your inquiry and we'll help you."

    Again, look at the conditional I put in my statement. That's important.
    Why can't you get past Beergate? An event which whilst it may not have been wise under the circumstances of the moment (a moment in 2021, and not at the height of the first, second or third lockdowns, let's not forget) didn't really appear to be illegal and a subsequent police investigation confirmed that.

    Partygate on the other hand, a series of events that you appear comfortable to dismiss as trivial, was slam-dunk illegal and 120 FPNs confirm that, including one for Sunak (who was ambushed by a cake) and Johnson who, evidence suggests, deserved several more. Now there was a police investigation without rigour.
  • Options
    UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 803

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    This “Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law” line has zero traction outside your head.
    Yes, Starmer seemed to have been pretty confident when he said he would resign if he was found to have broken the law.

    Of course, to certain Tories, this was a fiendish trick designed to bounce the police into clearing him.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.
    LOL. I've never said it was a 'major public health risk'. I do contend it was a bloody stupid thing to do, politically and in terms of risking spread of the virus. And it was also utterly unnecessary. Do you disagree with that?

    And remember, Starmer repeatedly wanted harder and longer lockdowns. Except, of course, when he and his mates (well, and Rayner...) wanted a party and curry.

    And you're correct: the timing of such events matters. A trap others have fallen into on here, e.g. Boris's hospital handshake on March 3rd 2020.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452
    edited June 2023

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped.
    Coped?

    "According to official Russian statistics, the Crimean agricultural industry fully overcame the consequences of the blocking of the North Crimean Canal and crop yields grew by a factor of 1.5 from 2013 by 2016. The reported rapid growth in agricultural production in Crimea is due to the fact that, with the help of subsidies in the order of 2–3 billion rubles a year from the budget of the Russian Federation, agricultural producers in Crimea were able to increase their fleet of agricultural machinery.

    These official statistics contrast with reports of a massive shrinkage in the area under cultivation in Crimea, from 130,000 hectares in 2013 to just 14,000 in 2017, and an empty canal and a nearly dry reservoir resulting in widespread water shortages, with water only being available for three to five hours a day in 2021."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#:~:text=In Crimea, numerous smaller canals,to the city of Simferopol.
    That's interesting thanks; but even with machinery, it's hard to see how a fall in the area under cultivation from 130,000 hectares to just 14,000 leads to crop yields increasing by 1.5 times - unless they were mahooseively inefficient.

    This may be just Russian figures being Russian figures...
    There was a good report, a while back, on how the autarkic plans for the Russian economy failed. Which is why so much critical infrastructure is dependent on components from the West.

    It also detailed the general bullshitting about economic matters that has been going on for years.
    There's a very interesting book called 'Red Plenty' by Francis Spufford. It's a fictionalised account of Russia in the 1950s and 60s, and the way they were lying to themselves about their output. In fact, the entire system rewarded lying about output.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/red-plenty-francis-spufford

    There are also rumours that China's economy is also gravely overstated, for similar reasons...
    A chap I used to work with, went to former USSR after the collapse. He was looking at deals with oil companies etc. got interested and even did Soviet style accounting qualifications to understand the books.

    His assessment of the layers of lies was interesting.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 19,205
    Isn't there something weird about setting your own questions and then expecting to get marked on the answers?

    The funny one for me that DWARFS the rest is 'stopping the boats'. I heard yesterday that only ONE IN TWENTY SIX asylum seekers arrive by boat!

    So he has not only set himself a very silly test even passing it is pointless.

  • Options
    CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    People desperately want SKS to be Boris Johnson is what has happened. The people that have insisted he’s guilty every time just so happened to he big fans of Boris Johnson.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,897
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

    My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
    Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.

    Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
    From what I see, it looks as if the East Bank is lower lying than the West, so it is mostly the Russian side that will be flooded.

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665957716202868737?t=OPLqFl6ikNyuY8h37YjP8w&s=19
    Yes, but the Russians won't need those positions - or as many of them - if they've made any attack over the Dnipro nearly impossible. My *assumption* is that there will be so much boggy land, mud and debris that any bridging or landing via boats would be much much more difficult now.
    On the other hand, the area upstream from the dam will be much narrower and shallower, with large beaches revealed, to making a crossing upstream from the dam much more viable.

    The flood will subside fairly quickly as it drains into the Black Sea, so any water obstacle downstream is likely to fade quickly, so the Russians cannot really leave the area undefended.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,452

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
    From what I see, it looks as if the East Bank is lower lying than the West, so it is mostly the Russian side that will be flooded.

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665957716202868737?t=OPLqFl6ikNyuY8h37YjP8w&s=19
    Yes, but the Russians won't need those positions - or as many of them - if they've made any attack over the Dnipro nearly impossible. My *assumption* is that there will be so much boggy land, mud and debris that any bridging or landing via boats would be much much more difficult now.
    Makes you wonder how much of the hovercraft landing craft stuff the Ukrainians have.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,897

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Good morning

    You may be surprised but I agree with your comments

    It was correct beergate was investigated and reviewed by Durham Police and on Sue Gray, I have consistently affirmed her report on Johnson was fair and indeed possibly too fair

    The question was whether she was approached properly and the decision to impose 6 months gardening leave seems reasonable in the circumstances
    In business people get approached by direct competitor firms. There is a right way to both approach people and conduct interviews, and then to handle that person as they transition from one to the other.

    What is now clear - there is no question - is that she was approached properly, hence the imposition of the usual period of garden leave. Senior figure, headhunted by the opposition, who did their job for the current employer scrupulously and professionally with the praise of their clients.

    There is no scandal. Not that some won't continue desperately to suggest there was and still is.
    Good morning

    I understand your father was taken ill

    I hope he is improving and send my best wishes to you and your family for his recovery
    Thanks for your kind thoughts. He is still with us, but it is looking increasingly grim. The next few days will be critical.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    After lowering the water levels last year in an effort of disruption, Russia raised them again ahead of this breach.
    ...Since mid-February, 2023, either deliberately or as a result of neglect, the damaged dam at Nova Kakhovka has not been adjusting to the seasonal increase in water flow, to the point that water is washing over the top of the dam and land above it has been flooded. Water levels in the reservoir have reached a 30-year high...

    The damage could be immense.

    Damage is now their primary objective. They can’t occupy or annex it, so leaving it so ruined that it won’t be able to function as an economically more successful counter-example right next door to the Russia dictatorship is all the war is about for the Russians, now.
    It's a bit like the Iraqis setting fire to the Kuwaiti oil wells in 1991.

    We know the mother of all retreats is coming.
    The dam is apparently an important water supply for Crimea. Do the Russians think that they can't even hold onto that?
    Crimea did without that water for seven or eight years from when the Ukrainians blocked it in 2014 until 2022. It was annoying for them and hurt their agriculture, but they coped. That inconvenience would be outweighed by the benefits Russia gets tactically from the devastation caused downstream - especially if it stops the likelihood of any cross-Dnipro attack.

    (Not that I think one was likely anyway; but the Russian may well be able to totally discount it now, allowing them to reposition their troops.)
    The areas impeded south of that dam are currently held by Russian forces who may find movement more difficult too. It will make support for any area where their trenches are overcome more difficult, for example. It risks cutting some of their own forces off. Other than the general principle of destroying everything of value it really makes very little sense.
    From what I see, it looks as if the East Bank is lower lying than the West, so it is mostly the Russian side that will be flooded.

    https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665957716202868737?t=OPLqFl6ikNyuY8h37YjP8w&s=19
    Yes, but the Russians won't need those positions - or as many of them - if they've made any attack over the Dnipro nearly impossible. My *assumption* is that there will be so much boggy land, mud and debris that any bridging or landing via boats would be much much more difficult now.
    On the other hand, the area upstream from the dam will be much narrower and shallower, with large beaches revealed, to making a crossing upstream from the dam much more viable.

    The flood will subside fairly quickly as it drains into the Black Sea, so any water obstacle downstream is likely to fade quickly, so the Russians cannot really leave the area undefended.
    From my experience of drained lakes, you don't get beaches, at least away from the edges. You get thick mud.

    An anecdote: many decades ago, Markeaton Lake in Derby was partially drained for some work to be done. A series of increasingly larger machines got stuck in the mud, as they tried to pull them out.
  • Options
    Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,933

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Good morning

    You may be surprised but I agree with your comments

    It was correct beergate was investigated and reviewed by Durham Police and on Sue Gray, I have consistently affirmed her report on Johnson was fair and indeed possibly too fair

    The question was whether she was approached properly and the decision to impose 6 months gardening leave seems reasonable in the circumstances
    In business people get approached by direct competitor firms. There is a right way to both approach people and conduct interviews, and then to handle that person as they transition from one to the other.

    What is now clear - there is no question - is that she was approached properly, hence the imposition of the usual period of garden leave. Senior figure, headhunted by the opposition, who did their job for the current employer scrupulously and professionally with the praise of their clients.

    There is no scandal. Not that some won't continue desperately to suggest there was and still is.
    Good morning

    I understand your father was taken ill

    I hope he is improving and send my best wishes to you and your family for his recovery
    Thanks for your kind thoughts. He is still with us, but it is looking increasingly grim. The next few days will be critical.
    I am sorry to hear that

    My son in law lost his mother last year and his father a couple of weeks ago and it is a very emotional time for the family

    It should teach us all to respect and look after the elderly
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,425

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

    My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
    Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.

    Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
    Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

    My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
    Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.

    Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
    Since I don't particularly have a political party, I doubt it's that. Which means you're insinuating it's an 'obsessional grudge'.

    It really isn't. And if that is your claim, you might want to look in the mirror...
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,604

    Dan Hodges, please explain:

    Sir Keir Starmer will be able to appoint Sue Gray as his chief of staff in the autumn after government advisers rejected calls for her to be banned from the role for more than a year.

    The Times has been told the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba) has recommended Gray, a former senior civil servant, should take just six months’ gardening leave.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f74a67fe-03e1-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=9ef4df4b683fa16d231b818b673e1642

    I know, I nearly the morning thread on this and embarrass those PBers who pimped the bullshit from Dan Hodges but I don't like to troll people.
    Are you saying after what Labour did with the Shami sham, people were utterly wrong not to think this sniffed a little? Really?
    As I pointed out at the times to Big G and others, it was just like Ed Llewellyn moving from the Foreign Office to work for the Tories/Dave.

    That it was some grand conspiracy was for morons and partisans.
    I can't recall if Ed Llewellyn had just led a major inquiry about the government? Had he?

    And you didn't actually answer my question.
    Because your question is irrelevant to the discussion.

    A top civil servant was repeatedly smeared by the likes of Dan Hodges and cheered by people on here.

    That's a smear job.
    Why is it irrelevant? Surely it's only irrelevant if there's no chance of any impropriety in such appointments - and as Shami showed, there is lots of room for impropriety.
    Was Shami a top civil servant? Was she any sort of civil servant? Did she come under the remit of ACOBA?
    No, no and no. But that avoids the central point: the *utter coincidence* that Shami cleared the party, and she then gets ennobled. Labour have form for exactly this: "give me useful results from your inquiry and we'll help you."

    Again, look at the conditional I put in my statement. That's important.
    Why can't you get past Beergate? An event which whilst it may not have been wise under the circumstances of the moment (a moment in 2021, and not at the height of the first, second or third lockdowns, let's not forget) didn't really appear to be illegal and a subsequent police investigation confirmed that.

    Partygate on the other hand, a series of events that you appear comfortable to dismiss as trivial, was slam-dunk illegal and 120 FPNs confirm that, including one for Sunak (who was ambushed by a cake) and Johnson who, evidence suggests, deserved several more. Now there was a police investigation without rigour.
    When have I dismissed Partygate as 'trivial' ?

    Go on, find a post where I have.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,691
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.

    Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees

    If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.

    And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).

    Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees... ;)
    Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?

    You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
    Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.

    I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.

    Aside from that, well done!
    It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.

    *lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.

    My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
    Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.

    Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
    Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
    It was a campaign meeting for a critical by-election in Hartlepool.

    Do you think that Durham takeaway curry's are so good that they attract casual diners from London on a regular basis?
This discussion has been closed.