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.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
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.”
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...
You're not voting for Starmer and neither am I. So neither of us is pushing a desperately partisan position. So we're back to what I always try to do which is apply rules and standards evenly.
Either meeting to campaign was legal at that time or it was not. Labour, the Tories, my lot the LibDems - all parties carried out limited campaigning which involved people meeting and working. On the blue benches that notably included Gove and Johnson. On the red benches Starmer and Rayner.
The "scandal" is that Starmer was photographed with a beer in his hand. Johnson was also snapped with beer / wine in his hand (on multiple occasions when the rules were much stricter) and therefore apply the rules evenly and do Starmer.
That's people's gripe about Currygate. Except that the time was different and so were the rules. Labour managed to shat the bed in their response making it look properly shifty, but the "WAS RAYNER THERE?" furore was made funny because it was legal if she was.
The obsessional grudge bit is that you very repeatedly finger Starmer as wanting longer and harder lockdowns. That may be true, that may also justify the blinkered approach. Perhaps. But what you or I think doesn't matter - the law matters and despite weeks of Daily Heil screeching there was no smoke, never mind no fire.
And to really rub salt into the wound, Starmer's "If I am fined I will resign" positioning really boosted him. Bless him though, if anyone needed a political boost it was Sir Keith Donkey.
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.
It depends on time frame, I think. Asylum claim numbers have been broadly stable for some time, but the switch to boats is a phenomenon of the last few years, now that stowing away in lorries is more difficult.
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.
Given the long-term devastating consequences that would have we should already have a credible plan of deterrence to dissuade Russia from taking that course of action. Unless that deterrence involves the Chinese - which is possible, because they were involved in convincing the Russians to dial back on the nuclear threats last autumn - then I'm not hearing much about it.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
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.
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.
It is implicit in your condemnation of Beergate. Like the drunk driver banned for a year demanding his neighbour also receives a ban because his tail light is out.
Anyway in an hour or so the media are going to go all Harry, not only in court here, but ironically in court in the US at the same time over his visa application to grant his stay in US
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
I do wonder why Donkey had to avoid campaigning with aides when Boris was perfectly ok to be doing the same.
We have to apply the rules and standards equally or they are neither rules nor standards. Starmer having a beer and food whilst working legally campaigning is a Major Scandal. Boris having beers with aides whilst legally campaigning is nothing to see here. Apparently.
Do have to laugh though. Starmer said "I'll resign if I did wrong" and gained a major boost in his standings. Yet having had two PMs resign in big scandals and a third scandallously taking his own public enquiry to court to claim the right to decide what evidence can be looked at, we always get dragged back to the *real* scandal. Namely the failure to sink Donkey with the beergate fabrication.
Anyway in an hour or so the media are going to go all Harry, not only in court here, but ironically in court in the US at the same time over his visa application to grant his stay in US
For some reason this received a lot of airtime on Irish radio this morning.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You're like the fan who's still arguing a penalty decision that went against your team, a year after they've been knocked out of the cup.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
Anyway in an hour or so the media are going to go all Harry, not only in court here, but ironically in court in the US at the same time over his visa application to grant his stay in US
The Flintknappers Gazette has its man on the spot.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You're like the fan who's still arguing a penalty decision that went against your team, a year after they've been knocked out of the cup.
LOL. No. remember how long Labour went on about Thatcher, even after she had long been out of power? And Starmer and his decision-making is still of immediate relevance, given the odds are he's going to be our next PM (*). And how many people on here still go on about Johnson, even though he's out of power?
(*) Or, if the Conservatives continue as they have been; Starmer will be the next-but four PM - in 2024...
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.
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.
It is implicit in your condemnation of Beergate. Like the drunk driver banned for a year demanding his neighbour also receives a ban because his tail light is out.
So I haven't. Partygate was wrong. But (whispers quietly): it's perfectly possible for *both* to be wrong.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
That's not an explosion at the dam. It's downstream hours later - the floodwaters are washing mines around, apparently with enough force to detonate several. When the floodwaters recede this is going to be an additional hazard, as the Russians mined their side pretty heavily, and those mines will now be randomly distributed downstream.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
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.
It depends on time frame, I think. Asylum claim numbers have been broadly stable for some time, but the switch to boats is a phenomenon of the last few years, now that stowing away in lorries is more difficult.
The impression I got was that most arrive by plane or ship and don't return. The derring do of stowing away on lorries or boarding rubber boats was something that worked for the cameras on news programs but was not particularly significant in preventing illegal immigration which seems to be the governments obsession.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
That's not an explosion at the dam. It's downstream hours later - the floodwaters are washing mines around, apparently with enough force to detonate several. When the floodwaters recede this is going to be an additional hazard, as the Russians mined their side pretty heavily, and those mines will now be randomly distributed downstream.
Thanks. Slightly curious how the guy managed to run out to film it at exactly the right point.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You're like the fan who's still arguing a penalty decision that went against your team, a year after they've been knocked out of the cup.
LOL. No. remember how long Labour went on about Thatcher, even after she had long been out of power? And Starmer and his decision-making is still of immediate relevance, given the odds are he's going to be our next PM (*). And how many people on here still go on about Johnson, even though he's out of power?
(*) Or, if the Conservatives continue as they have been; Starmer will be the next-but four PM - in 2024...
The politics are different. Attacking Thatcher was to attack the Thatcherites who made up the bulk of the Conservative Party, as well as her policies. Starmer and Blair do not have that same iconic value. That is also why no-one complains much about Ted Heath or Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
He wasn't sure it was within the rules.
He was sure it was within the rules. He used to be DPP so he does have a good understanding of the law and our legal system. But laws do get interpreted, so he was clear that if they found he was wrong he would go. The other guy *was* wrong, repeatedly, about rules he created. Yet its clearly a conspiracy against him.
The harsh reality for the Tories and for those who provide them succour is that has Starmer been fingered for currygate and had to fall on his sword, the spotlight would immediately shine on Johnson. Who already had a load of likely breeches under investigation and who had been caught doing the exact same thing as Starmer during that election campaign. They wouldn't have liked that part, and the spinning would have been hilarious to watch. Its almost a pity we missed out.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
That's not an explosion at the dam. It's downstream hours later - the floodwaters are washing mines around, apparently with enough force to detonate several. When the floodwaters recede this is going to be an additional hazard, as the Russians mined their side pretty heavily, and those mines will now be randomly distributed downstream.
Thanks. Slightly curious how the guy managed to run out to film it at exactly the right point.
There will be thousands of people filming thousands of hours of footage of the floodwaters. Not that unlikely for some of them to catch mines exploding in this way. There are several other similar videos.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
That's not an explosion at the dam. It's downstream hours later - the floodwaters are washing mines around, apparently with enough force to detonate several. When the floodwaters recede this is going to be an additional hazard, as the Russians mined their side pretty heavily, and those mines will now be randomly distributed downstream.
Thanks. Slightly curious how the guy managed to run out to film it at exactly the right point.
There will be thousands of people filming thousands of hours of footage of the floodwaters. Not that unlikely for some of them to catch mines exploding in this way. There are several other similar videos.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
Water levels reportedly still rising, and the flood will last for about 72 hours.
The following settlements are completely or partially flooded: Tyahynka, Lvove, Odradokamyanka in Beryslav district, Ivanivka, Mykilske Tokarivka, Poniativka, Bilozerka, and the Ostrov neighborhood of Kherson in Kherson district... https://twitter.com/oleg_veretskiy/status/1665962862458679296
Water levels reportedly still rising, and the flood will last for about 72 hours.
The following settlements are completely or partially flooded: Tyahynka, Lvove, Odradokamyanka in Beryslav district, Ivanivka, Mykilske Tokarivka, Poniativka, Bilozerka, and the Ostrov neighborhood of Kherson in Kherson district... https://twitter.com/oleg_veretskiy/status/1665962862458679296
The Soviets did the same to the Dnieper dam during Barbarossa. 20,000 killed including a large number of their own soldiers.
It will also presumably destroy a lot of bridges downstream.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
More seriously, the ecology of the region could take years to recover. The dam has been there for nearly seventy years, and the landscape has adapted accordingly.
He does not claim an exceptional gift for compassion. When he is asked by schoolchildren: “Do you hate the Germans?” he replies: “Why do you say ‘the Germans’? Who were my guards? Hungarians, Ukrainians, Poles, French, Estonians.” If he went down that road, he says, he would end up hating everyone. “No, I think what I hate is what human beings allow themselves to do.”
This should not be misread as a state of philosophical calm. Perl is clear and frank that he is haunted by that year of his life. He describes a visit to Sandringham: “You’ve got a beautiful garden with a wire fence and forests at the back. What do you think the first thing came to my mind?” The subcamp of Dachau, fenced off in the middle of a forest, where Perl was held nearly 80 years ago...
Choking to death in a gas chamber, in the company of hundreds of panicking people, must be among the very worst of deaths.
“We knew they were dead once the screaming stopped.”
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
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.”
Pretty much all these cryto businesses look like blatant scams, once enough time passes.
They've looked liked scams from the off tbf; crypto, nfts, shady forex stuff, all of it. I dare say, as with all such bubbles and manias a few people have made out of it pretty well, but plenty of others have not - all the while supporting a financial infrastructure that is an absolute gift to criminals.
It's all essentially promising (entirely unproductive) money-for-nothing, which is always a scam giveaway. What makes me saddest is that it adds nothing useful to the world - it just appeals to greed, laziness and FOMO and promises capital without effort or production. If you want that, do it like a gentleman and place well-considered bets.
I wouldn't be surprised actually, the Tories held Hillingdon council last year even while losing traditional Tory bastions in London like Westminster and Barnet councils and Hillingdon also voted 56% Leave ie well above the UK and English average.
Uxbridge is now probably safer for Boris than switching back to Henley would be, Henley voted Remain and the LDs and Residents won a landslide there in the South Oxfordshire local elections in May
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
As would the 2029 election.
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
I read somewhere recently Apple is absolutely scrambling for new factories in Anywhere But China.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
Mr. F, the idea of climate reparations is fucking insane.
"Hey, let's sign up to be on the hook for hundreds of billions. That'll never piss off the electorate and cause a massive backlash for a party that will tear up that bullshit deal, will it?"
Especially great that we'd be a payer and China would be a recipient.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I'd guess more likely he'd find himself a nice safe seat elsewhere where he doesn't have to do any actual work. It's an interesting poll though, and ought to serve as a warning to Labour against pursuing a vindictive decapitation strategy here, and wasting their resources. I'd place it as a C-tier target, i.e. will swing in a landslide.
Of course we'd all like to see his stupid blubbing face, but I don't think he'd even stick around to see himself lose.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I wouldn't be surprised actually, the Tories held Hillingdon council last year even while losing traditional Tory bastions in London like Westminster and Barnet councils and Hillingdon also voted 56% Leave ie well above the UK and English average.
Uxbridge is now probably safer for Boris than switching back to Henley would be, Henley voted Remain and the LDs and Residents won a landslide there in the South Oxfordshire local elections in May
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
Is reducing exports a good or bad thing?
isn’t it rather that S. Korea’s exports have increased so that the shares of China is less?
Mr. F, the idea of climate reparations is fucking insane.
"Hey, let's sign up to be on the hook for hundreds of billions. That'll never piss off the electorate and cause a massive backlash for a party that will tear up that bullshit deal, will it?"
Especially great that we'd be a payer and China would be a recipient.
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
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.
More seriously, the ecology of the region could take years to recover. The dam has been there for nearly seventy years, and the landscape has adapted accordingly.
Vast swathes of Ukraine have become an environmental disaster.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
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.'
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.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
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.
The timing is remarkably coincidental to say the least. It would make sense on the face of it simply to slow an advance and allow redirection if their own forces. Involving the plant would be a remarkable admission of admitting the permanence of redirecting.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
Russia need to see that there are consequences for an act like this.
There's a video of an explosion allegedly filmed by Russia at the dam this morning. The explosion happens underwater, and near the person who was filming. It doesn't look that large (AIUI underwater explosions tend to be very visible above the surface due to the incompressibility of water) , but I suppose it could have caused a progressive collapse, or been one of several.
That's not an explosion at the dam. It's downstream hours later - the floodwaters are washing mines around, apparently with enough force to detonate several. When the floodwaters recede this is going to be an additional hazard, as the Russians mined their side pretty heavily, and those mines will now be randomly distributed downstream.
Thanks. Slightly curious how the guy managed to run out to film it at exactly the right point.
He might have been aware of another mine going off moments earlier?
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
As would the 2029 election.
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
Sunak does not want the same fate.
Yes. Despite the losses, the Conservatives still have a sizeable councillor base. A repeat of the mid-90’s would see them lose almost every county council, plus about half the 2,500 seats they won on May 4th.
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
I read somewhere recently Apple is absolutely scrambling for new factories in Anywhere But China.
Vietnam grew 8% last year, for example. Developed economies like Japan ought also to benefit, as semiconductor supply chains are rerouted away from China.
The world will still trade with them, obviously. But there's a real effort to reduce dependency by the major free world economies.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
In that case Steve Kinnock is in big trouble in Port Talbot!
PS I believe you might still be fighting the 2019 General Election.
"But they voted leave". Yes. Because they wanted to get away from EU corruption and incompetence and invest money into the NHS and their community. So why will voters vote for a grossly corrupt and incompetent government which is starving both the NHS and their communities of cash whilst lining their own pockets?
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
The tendency towards reducing reliance on China is interesting.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20% https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367 ...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year... ...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
Is reducing exports a good or bad thing?
The first quarter recession clearly isn't. Diversifying away from China is.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Exactly. We need to be developing, manufacturing and exporting next gen green technologies. We industrialised much if the world through our inventiveness and industrial might - we've reduced ourselves to a fraction of that but still have brains and creativity.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
He wasn't sure it was within the rules.
He was sure it was within the rules. He used to be DPP so he does have a good understanding of the law and our legal system. But laws do get interpreted, so he was clear that if they found he was wrong he would go. The other guy *was* wrong, repeatedly, about rules he created. Yet its clearly a conspiracy against him.
The harsh reality for the Tories and for those who provide them succour is that has Starmer been fingered for currygate and had to fall on his sword, the spotlight would immediately shine on Johnson. Who already had a load of likely breeches under investigation and who had been caught doing the exact same thing as Starmer during that election campaign. They wouldn't have liked that part, and the spinning would have been hilarious to watch. Its almost a pity we missed out.
He did not say it as within the rules. He said he was unsure. If there was the doubt, why do it?
I've never mentioned 'the other guy', or a 'conspiracy'. Stop inventing stuff.
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
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?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You really are making an absolute fool of yourself on this. It was a work meeting, they had some food after a very long day. That was it.
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.'
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.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Investment - and aid - to build renewable infrastructure in developing countries would be good for the entire world both economically and environmentally.
Labelling it reparations wouldn't change that reality, even if it were to irritate some.
You could sooth them by pointing out it might reduce the pressure for migration.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
As would the 2029 election.
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
Sunak does not want the same fate.
Yes. Despite the losses, the Conservatives still have a sizeable councillor base. A repeat of the mid-90’s would see them lose almost every county council, plus about half the 2,500 seats they won on May 4th.
In terms of councils however Labour now control more. What is different is the Tories have held councils like Dartford, Walsall and Dudley and Torbay they lost in 1995 but lost a few councils like Surrey Heath and Spelthorne they held in 1995
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Comments
Either meeting to campaign was legal at that time or it was not. Labour, the Tories, my lot the LibDems - all parties carried out limited campaigning which involved people meeting and working. On the blue benches that notably included Gove and Johnson. On the red benches Starmer and Rayner.
The "scandal" is that Starmer was photographed with a beer in his hand. Johnson was also snapped with beer / wine in his hand (on multiple occasions when the rules were much stricter) and therefore apply the rules evenly and do Starmer.
That's people's gripe about Currygate. Except that the time was different and so were the rules. Labour managed to shat the bed in their response making it look properly shifty, but the "WAS RAYNER THERE?" furore was made funny because it was legal if she was.
The obsessional grudge bit is that you very repeatedly finger Starmer as wanting longer and harder lockdowns. That may be true, that may also justify the blinkered approach. Perhaps. But what you or I think doesn't matter - the law matters and despite weeks of Daily Heil screeching there was no smoke, never mind no fire.
And to really rub salt into the wound, Starmer's "If I am fined I will resign" positioning really boosted him. Bless him though, if anyone needed a political boost it was Sir Keith Donkey.
https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1665673808265592834
You'd think they'd have got new engineers in after the first time.
The 'peace' brigade will be getting very noisy.
We have to apply the rules and standards equally or they are neither rules nor standards. Starmer having a beer and food whilst working legally campaigning is a Major Scandal. Boris having beers with aides whilst legally campaigning is nothing to see here. Apparently.
Do have to laugh though. Starmer said "I'll resign if I did wrong" and gained a major boost in his standings. Yet having had two PMs resign in big scandals and a third scandallously taking his own public enquiry to court to claim the right to decide what evidence can be looked at, we always get dragged back to the *real* scandal. Namely the failure to sink Donkey with the beergate fabrication.
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1665948974056873984
I can see Labour supporting this as many of their activists and younger MP candidates are inline with this sort of thinking.
Be interesting to see how this pans out. Undoubtedly the charity sector will be in favour as they will be the ones to administer it.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/rich-countries-with-high-greenhouse-gas-emissions-could-pay-170tn-in-climate-reparations/ar-AA1c9YB4?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=f091f22db52742908323d2925335ce4c&ei=18
(*) Or, if the Conservatives continue as they have been; Starmer will be the next-but four PM - in 2024...
Oops! Austria’s Social Democrats announce wrong winner of leadership contest
Party announces one winner on Saturday, and another on Monday.
https://www.politico.eu/article/austria-social-party-democrats-announce-wrong-winner-of-leadership-contest/
Hold on, China is receiving cash in this scenario and we're err paying...
It also includes New Zealand in the 'global north'...
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1665755411440336903?s=20
The harsh reality for the Tories and for those who provide them succour is that has Starmer been fingered for currygate and had to fall on his sword, the spotlight would immediately shine on Johnson. Who already had a load of likely breeches under investigation and who had been caught doing the exact same thing as Starmer during that election campaign. They wouldn't have liked that part, and the spinning would have been hilarious to watch. Its almost a pity we missed out.
https://twitter.com/COUPSURE/status/1665962389911552000
It would have been more plausible had he been filming for some time, because he had been looking at the flow and saw a mine drifting past.
The following settlements are completely or partially flooded: Tyahynka, Lvove, Odradokamyanka in Beryslav district, Ivanivka, Mykilske Tokarivka, Poniativka, Bilozerka, and the Ostrov neighborhood of Kherson in Kherson district...
https://twitter.com/oleg_veretskiy/status/1665962862458679296
It will also presumably destroy a lot of bridges downstream.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1665979895829151744
The preferred PM figures on the new boundaries translated to voteshare gives Labour 314 Tories 273 ie similar to 2017 in reverse
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=Y&CON=37&LAB=42&LIB=12&Reform=3&Green=5&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=17.4&SCOTLAB=30.7&SCOTLIB=8&SCOTReform=1.4&SCOTGreen=2.7&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=37.8&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2019nbbase
https://conservativehome.com/2023/06/06/lord-ashcroft-my-new-poll-suggests-that-johnson-would-win-a-by-election-in-uxbridge-and-south-ruislip/
I think he's probably wrong.
“We knew they were dead once the screaming stopped.”
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
Korea's export dependency on China dips below 20%
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=352367
...KITA said Korea's dependence on exports to China decreased consistently from 26.8 percent in 2018 to 22.8 percent in 2022 and dropped further to 19.5 percent in the first quarter of this year...
...While exports to China fell by 4.4 percent last year, exports to markets excluding China increased by 9.6 percent. In the first quarter of this year, exports to China decreased by 29.8 percent, while exports to markets excluding China declined only by 6.8 percent...
It's all essentially promising (entirely unproductive) money-for-nothing, which is always a scam giveaway. What makes me saddest is that it adds nothing useful to the world - it just appeals to greed, laziness and FOMO and promises capital without effort or production. If you want that, do it like a gentleman and place well-considered bets.
I'm glad the shine is coming off a bit now.
Uxbridge is now probably safer for Boris than switching back to Henley would be, Henley voted Remain and the LDs and Residents won a landslide there in the South Oxfordshire local elections in May
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
Sunak does not want the same fate.
Mr. F, the idea of climate reparations is fucking insane.
"Hey, let's sign up to be on the hook for hundreds of billions. That'll never piss off the electorate and cause a massive backlash for a party that will tear up that bullshit deal, will it?"
Especially great that we'd be a payer and China would be a recipient.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Austrian_legislative_election
Of course we'd all like to see his stupid blubbing face, but I don't think he'd even stick around to see himself lose.
PS. LOTO Burgon will also be shipping council seats to the Tories.
(Good morning!)
PS I believe you might still be fighting the 2019 General Election.
Also to note it lists Bury South as changing hands, when effectively it already has.
Developed economies like Japan ought also to benefit, as semiconductor supply chains are rerouted away from China.
The world will still trade with them, obviously. But there's a real effort to reduce dependency by the major free world economies.
I've never mentioned 'the other guy', or a 'conspiracy'. Stop inventing stuff.
Labelling it reparations wouldn't change that reality, even if it were to irritate some.
You could sooth them by pointing out it might reduce the pressure for migration.
Look at recent delinquency. Or even back when Blair thought tossing half the rebate on the bonfire of his ambition was a great deal for the nation.