Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
I'm hoping the LDs will get at least 15% at the general election, but not sure how realistic that is. Good results for the party in tonight's by-elections.
15% is achievable, esp if they get their southern vote out. It probably wont translate into more than 25 seats though
I'm hoping 35 seats is possible. Maybe they could take a few seats off the SNP in Scotland, such as Ross, Skye and Lochaber.
It's early days but if the spreads were up I'd be a buyer at 25 and seller at 40. I'd be surprised to see them outside that range.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Tremendous work from the Putin alliance of Hungary and the GOP - Ukraine is struggling to make any progress, therefore they should get no more support. That way, someone in the war will make progress at least.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
Restrictions on financial support from the EU and US are far more of a risk to Ukraine than current Russian offensives which seem to be going nowhere.
They remain willing and able to fight but the Ukrainian state simply cannot operate without western cash. They do not have the resources to maintain their war effort unaided. The Republicans in Congress and Hungary in the EU are a real threat to Ukraine.
Surprise of the night - LibDem gain in North Kesteven.
An astonishing surprise. The Conservatives were unopposed last time and the only other time a Lib Dem stood in this ward they got 57 votes.
Love politics. Anything can happen.
Hate politics. Anything can happen. ☹️
Aw come on. For too long we had this political orthodoxy - this then that. The positive of the last decade is that anything is now possible. We need people to vote for what they want, not against what they don't.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Famously, the Allied forces in Normandy after some months had losses exceeding 100% (it's a plot point in "Band of Brothers"). Soldiers die and are replaced. That's what happens in a war. Provided Putin can replace them (and he's just mobilised another 170k?) it isn't an issue unless he loses the Presidential election (March/May 2024)
As for the link to Transnistria: yes. I did point that out! I think the Ukrainians should start laying down their own minefields...☹️
Surprise of the night - LibDem gain in North Kesteven.
An astonishing surprise. The Conservatives were unopposed last time and the only other time a Lib Dem stood in this ward they got 57 votes.
Love politics. Anything can happen.
Wouldn't be as fun to bet on otherwise.
But the Lib Dem Lincolnshire success is a bit unsurprising in a way. "Where we work, we win" has been a sandalista mantra forever. (There's little more satisfying in elections than holding off a Lib Dem kitchen sink campaign.)
There are plenty of places where a full on Lib Dem campaign would win- the limiting factor is often how many/few campaigns can run simultaneously.
Two implications, I reckon. First is that the Lid Dem hit rate next year may well be excellent, the unknown is how many targets they have. The second is that people thinking like Lib Dems probably overestimate the mountain Labour have to climb. From a LD ground war perspective, it looks hard. But if Labour's plan is an air war, it's much easier.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
The argument for “clean” centres where people can take their drugs in relative safety and those drugs can be tested for them becomes ever more compelling. We simply cannot go on like this.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.
The latest YouGov has Labour’s lead at 22 points (despite Stats for Leftie’s mislabelling an 11 point Deltapoll lead as YouGov) but I don’t see you coming on here shouting about that.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
It's hard to believe that the party of Reagan and Bush are now Putin's willing catamites.
It's hard to argue the current MAGA party are the party of Reagan and Bush, just as the current Brexit party in Government are not the party of Thatcher, for all the cosplay
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Tony Blair banned fox hunting after receiving a £1 million donation to Labour from an animal rights group, Peter Mandelson has said.
The former business secretary claimed the organisation put the then Labour leader “under pressure” to ban the countryside pursuit.
He said the debate got “pretty transactional” and said the animal rights body insisted on the ban “in return” for money.
The Labour peer did not identify the group involved, but in 1996 animal rights campaigner Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare, gave the party £1 million.
A spokeswoman for Sir Tony said on Thursday that there was “no such agreement” and that there were a lot of people with passionate views on the subject.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Mr. kle4, Putin, Orban, the Republicans are akin to Hanno arguing that if Hannibal's winning he doesn't need reinforcements and if he's losing he doesn't deserve them.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Mr. kle4, Putin, Orban, the Republicans are akin to Hanno arguing that if Hannibal's winning he doesn't need reinforcements and if he's losing he doesn't deserve them.
It is defamatory to compare Zelensky to that loser Hannibal, edit your comment.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
It's hard to believe that the party of Reagan and Bush are now Putin's willing catamites.
It's hard to argue the current MAGA party are the party of Reagan and Bush, just as the current Brexit party in Government are not the party of Thatcher, for all the cosplay
We should be paying a lot more attention than we do to the very close links there are between the Tory right, the GOP and the Orban regime, given the latter two's undoubted backing for Putin. It's all there in very plain sight every week in the Spectator and the Telegraph. Making friends with the enemy is never a good idea.
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Tony Blair banned fox hunting after receiving a £1 million donation to Labour from an animal rights group, Peter Mandelson has said.
The former business secretary claimed the organisation put the then Labour leader “under pressure” to ban the countryside pursuit.
He said the debate got “pretty transactional” and said the animal rights body insisted on the ban “in return” for money.
The Labour peer did not identify the group involved, but in 1996 animal rights campaigner Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare, gave the party £1 million.
A spokeswoman for Sir Tony said on Thursday that there was “no such agreement” and that there were a lot of people with passionate views on the subject.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
First PM since who knows when (Callaghan?) to not fight a losing General Election campaign, usually somewhere hopeless, first?
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
Tony Blair banned fox hunting after receiving a £1 million donation to Labour from an animal rights group, Peter Mandelson has said.
The former business secretary claimed the organisation put the then Labour leader “under pressure” to ban the countryside pursuit.
He said the debate got “pretty transactional” and said the animal rights body insisted on the ban “in return” for money.
The Labour peer did not identify the group involved, but in 1996 animal rights campaigner Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare, gave the party £1 million.
A spokeswoman for Sir Tony said on Thursday that there was “no such agreement” and that there were a lot of people with passionate views on the subject.
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
The Gaynor Lord case (which this is) has been all over the media. No age-related blackout here.
Has it? I haven't seen anything on the news. Perhaps I've just missed it?
There's been cctv pictures shown. The general assumption seems to be she ended up in the river, possibly suicide, rather than kidnap or murder. As an aside, Nicola Bulley was 45 so also not covered by any age-related news blackout.
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
The Gaynor Lord case (which this is) has been all over the media. No age-related blackout here.
Has it? I haven't seen anything on the news. Perhaps I've just missed it?
There's been cctv pictures shown. The general assumption seems to be she ended up in the river, possibly suicide, rather than kidnap or murder. As an aside, Nicola Bulley was 45 so also not covered by any age-related news blackout.
My perception is that there is a very different level level of media over this case, but maybe I have just missed the main news coming from the riverbank and endless speculation. I get that Nicola Bulley was 45 but the images released were probably younger.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
First PM since who knows when (Callaghan?) to not fight a losing General Election campaign, usually somewhere hopeless, first?
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
It is not just that. Rishi has led a charmed life with nary a setback from birth. He was a star pupil and head boy at his famous public school; a first at Oxford; a Fulbright scholarship to America where he courted his wife; made millions at hedge funds; became an MP in a safe seat at his first attempt; was a minister within two years; entered the Cabinet a year later; then Chancellor and Prime Minister. His only setback was losing to Liz Truss for a few weeks.
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
Your periodic column of the media is skewed to pretty women who aren’t over 40 (ish). Sad case in Norwich extremely reminiscent of the Nicola Bulley affair, yet receiving a fraction of the media interest. Is it because she is in her fifties media? And not a hot young mum?
The Gaynor Lord case (which this is) has been all over the media. No age-related blackout here.
Has it? I haven't seen anything on the news. Perhaps I've just missed it?
There's been cctv pictures shown. The general assumption seems to be she ended up in the river, possibly suicide, rather than kidnap or murder. As an aside, Nicola Bulley was 45 so also not covered by any age-related news blackout.
The police and media didn't really cover themselves in glory with regard to Ms Bulley, I rather suspect they are being deliberately more circumspect
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
Maybe the NCSC should stop issuing warnings about cybersecurity and start to do something about it. OK that's unfair but there does seem to be a general lack of urgency at the top. As with shoplifting, as with Just Stop Oil defacing paintings and Christmas trees, we depend on most people not wishing us harm. With cybersecurity, we know there are active groups around the world who do wish us harm.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
First PM since who knows when (Callaghan?) to not fight a losing General Election campaign, usually somewhere hopeless, first?
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
It is not just that. Rishi has led a charmed life with nary a setback from birth. He was a star pupil and head boy at his famous public school; a first at Oxford; a Fulbright scholarship to America where he courted his wife; made millions at hedge funds; became an MP in a safe seat at his first attempt; was a minister within two years; entered the Cabinet a year later; then Chancellor and Prime Minister. His only setback was losing to Liz Truss for a few weeks.
Slight note of pedantry, he wasn’t head boy but was the senior prefect of the commoners and so was second in rank to the senior prefect in college so weirdly had practice in being a leader of something where there is someone constitutionally more important but has less real practical influence as with the PM/Monarch relationship. The experience doesn’t seem to have helped him though.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Famously, the Allied forces in Normandy after some months had losses exceeding 100% (it's a plot point in "Band of Brothers"). Soldiers die and are replaced. That's what happens in a war. Provided Putin can replace them (and he's just mobilised another 170k?) it isn't an issue unless he loses the Presidential election (March/May 2024)
As for the link to Transnistria: yes. I did point that out! I think the Ukrainians should start laying down their own minefields...☹️
According to another figure I've seen, only 1/3 of all Allied troops who went to Europe after D-Day fired their gun in anger.
The issue is that countries with advanced economies have far less capacity to 'replace' troops than was the case 80-100 years ago.
Also be careful with Putin's use of troop numbers: it's alleged that as Russia acknowledges few deaths/injuries to their troops, they include them in their troop numbers. Which I hope the leadership really believe, as lying to yourself is a great way to lose a war...
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
Maybe the NCSC should stop issuing warnings about cybersecurity and start to do something about it. OK that's unfair but there does seem to be a general lack of urgency at the top. As with shoplifting, as with Just Stop Oil defacing paintings and Christmas trees, we depend on most people not wishing us harm. With cybersecurity, we know there are active groups around the world who do wish us harm.
If you recall, Braverman was recently criticised in select committee evidence for ignoring the Home Office responsibility for the cybersecurity of critical national infrastructure.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Famously, the Allied forces in Normandy after some months had losses exceeding 100% (it's a plot point in "Band of Brothers"). Soldiers die and are replaced. That's what happens in a war. Provided Putin can replace them (and he's just mobilised another 170k?) it isn't an issue unless he loses the Presidential election (March/May 2024)
As for the link to Transnistria: yes. I did point that out! I think the Ukrainians should start laying down their own minefields...☹️
According to another figure I've seen, only 1/3 of all Allied troops who went to Europe after D-Day fired their gun in anger.
The issue is that countries with advanced economies have far less capacity to 'replace' troops than was the case 80-100 years ago.
Also be careful with Putin's use of troop numbers: it's alleged that as Russia acknowledges few deaths/injuries to their troops, they include them in their troop numbers. Which I hope the leadership really believe, as lying to yourself is a great way to lose a war...
Not perhaps that surprising about troops in Normandy. The allies in particular had a huge logistics effort. The actual sharp end fighting was a small proportion of the military. Similar in some ways to the 7 men in a Lancaster supported by scores of ground crew.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
At some level, Boris, like Allegra Stratton, knew that. Which is why he didn't tell the truth about what happened.
And, as is often the way, the lack of truth made it all worse.
Surprise of the night - LibDem gain in North Kesteven.
Is it that surprising?
In once-"safe" Tory Oxfordshire, there are several explanations for LDs' local success amid continuing GE iffiness: : 1. Local elections allow something like Proportional Representation in a parliamentary constituency. West Oxfordshire District, on current boundaries, covers the same geography as Witney parliamentary constituency. It's currently run by an LD/Lab/Green coalition of its 49 councillors, but the polls probably forecast a Tory hold in its one Parliamentary seat. Because the anti-Tory vote splits three ways in the GE, but swings to LD, Lab or Green in the individual District seats. There's little point whining that the anti-Tories "ought" to combine for the GE: the voters don't like it - and the activists really, really, really don't like it
2. Most voters don't turn out in local elections, but do in GEs. The collapse of Tory activists means there just isn't the activist pressure in locals to vote anyway - and this lack of ground activity favours LD/Lab/Green. It's also why RefUK has made no inroads in local elections
3. Generally, a substantial proportion of voters in local elections know the candidates (if only by word of mouth recommendations) and vote accordingly: voters in GEs decide on what they perceive to be national issues. LD candidates tend to be far more popular (and visible) in the seats they represent than their party's national policies are.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
Jan Marsalek is one of the world’s most wanted men, after $2 billion disappeared from his ex company Wirecard. Now he’s got a new Russian identity, hangs out in Dubai and still works for Russia’s services - as he has for nearly a decade. @WSJ https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1735582701757825506
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
First PM since who knows when (Callaghan?) to not fight a losing General Election campaign, usually somewhere hopeless, first?
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
Same applies to Starmer, neither he nor Sunak had fought even a council seat let alone an unwinnable or marginal parliamentary seat before they got their safe constituencies in 2015
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
Didn’t they have a proper offline backup of their key systems?
Pleased I’m not their (about to be former) Head of IT.
The Head of IT who will doubtless soon be charging a fortune as a business continuity and recovery expert.
To be fair, I did make a very good living advising on avoiding/dealing-with projects going tits-up after sponsoring a project that launched a thousand tits high into the sky… experience counts…
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
Yes. Suspended. Could have fought a by-election. Chose not to.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
What did cockroaches do to deserve that?
It does seem unfair as apparently cockroaches are very attentive parents.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
One of the reasons that confidence trickery can be a bet with reasonable odds is that their victims don't want to admit to anyone, even themselves, that they have been conned. So there's no crime reported.
Same as the reason that people stay in relationships that anyone else can see are destroying them. It's easier to hope that things will get better than admit that it was a terrible mistake.
But the key thing about Johnson is that he lies. Not just fail to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, but flat out lies. That matters.
With normal, bad-but-tolerated political dissembling, you can eventually get to the truth. It requires masses of effort, lots of time, and the experience to interpret "I don't recall the answer to that question" as "you've got me bang to rights, but I can't bring myself to admit it", but it can be done. It's not admirable, but the sort of slipperiness shown by Sunak or Starmer is tolerable, becuase the system has a way to cope with it.
With Johnson's degrees of lying, not even that is possible. Hence the taboo.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
You keep forgetting Johnson was a very bad man, and a Prime Minister totally out of his depth, due to his venality and his terminal laziness.
The post Johnson line is that all his election victories were accidents against useless opponents. This doesn’t, for example, match what I remember of the Mayoral election, where there startlement in the media that anyone could defeat Livingstone in London.
On immigration and wages. Because of a world wide shortage of degreed and qualified white collar professionals (Doctors etc), there is no practical level of immigration that can reduce wages.
There are two other tiers of the economy - the lower paid jobs and the frankly illegal conditions of the black economy. Here, there are much less shortages of the skills worldwide. So immigration does affect wages in both groups.
Surprise of the night - LibDem gain in North Kesteven.
Is it that surprising?
In once-"safe" Tory Oxfordshire, there are several explanations for LDs' local success amid continuing GE iffiness: : 1. Local elections allow something like Proportional Representation in a parliamentary constituency. West Oxfordshire District, on current boundaries, covers the same geography as Witney parliamentary constituency. It's currently run by an LD/Lab/Green coalition of its 49 councillors, but the polls probably forecast a Tory hold in its one Parliamentary seat. Because the anti-Tory vote splits three ways in the GE, but swings to LD, Lab or Green in the individual District seats. There's little point whining that the anti-Tories "ought" to combine for the GE: the voters don't like it - and the activists really, really, really don't like it
2. Most voters don't turn out in local elections, but do in GEs. The collapse of Tory activists means there just isn't the activist pressure in locals to vote anyway - and this lack of ground activity favours LD/Lab/Green. It's also why RefUK has made no inroads in local elections
3. Generally, a substantial proportion of voters in local elections know the candidates (if only by word of mouth recommendations) and vote accordingly: voters in GEs decide on what they perceive to be national issues. LD candidates tend to be far more popular (and visible) in the seats they represent than their party's national policies are.
1 isn't true at all. It's not uncommon for local election results to be less proportional than GEs. 2 is more correctly "more" voters don't turn out. Both local election and GE turnouts vary, but the latter are always higher (except when they are concurrent). 3 can be true, more typically of small towns and rural wards, less so in the cities. In London more people know who their MP is than their councillor.
Anyhow educated remainy Oxfordshire is a long way away from the politics and demography of Lincolnshire, and the Kesteven result is a surprise. The most you can say is that Lincs has something of a tradition of opting for independents over the big parties, at local election level. And that the LibDems in Lincs seem to be doing some energetic campaigning recently in an area where they've previously had little activity.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
the quote "not being very good at politics" stands out for me... he aint going to cut the mustard in a GE
In 2019 Rishi was a junior minister campaigning in a very safe seat - he’s never fought an election before because Richmondshire is your typical rural Yorkshire Tory forever seat
First PM since who knows when (Callaghan?) to not fight a losing General Election campaign, usually somewhere hopeless, first?
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
Same applies to Starmer, neither he nor Sunak had fought even a council seat let alone an unwinnable or marginal parliamentary seat before they got their safe constituencies in 2015
Jan Marsalek is one of the world’s most wanted men, after $2 billion disappeared from his ex company Wirecard. Now he’s got a new Russian identity, hangs out in Dubai and still works for Russia’s services - as he has for nearly a decade. @WSJ https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1735582701757825506
Remember the enthusiasm with which the German state tried to protect Wirecard?
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
It's hard to believe that the party of Reagan and Bush are now Putin's willing catamites.
I am mentally prepared for the GOP to walk away from NATO.
European Army here we come.
European army with Hungary kicked out of the EU.
A European Army doesn't mean an automaticity of having EU membership.
Although it will set the cat amongst the pigeons in Ireland.
If the Irish play silly beggars then we need a modern day Pope Adrian IV.
I heard an interesting comment from a Polish friend. He thinks that Tusk will push for a mandatory level of defence spending in the EU.
I suspect Tusk will have his hands full with the extent of domestic opposition and pushback he'll get from the PiS President - who has veto powers - and with the media and other institutions stuffed full of his opponents.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
It's hard to believe that the party of Reagan and Bush are now Putin's willing catamites.
I am mentally prepared for the GOP to walk away from NATO.
European Army here we come.
European army with Hungary kicked out of the EU.
A European Army doesn't mean an automaticity of having EU membership.
Although it will set the cat amongst the pigeons in Ireland.
If the Irish play silly beggars then we need a modern day Pope Adrian IV.
I heard an interesting comment from a Polish friend. He thinks that Tusk will push for a mandatory level of defence spending in the EU.
I suspect Tusk will have his hands full with the extent of domestic opposition and pushback he'll get from the PiS President - who has veto powers - and with the media and other institutions stuffed full of his opponents.
Yes - but the interesting bit of such a policy is that Poland will be spending a high amount of defence for the foreseeable. As will a number of the Eastern European countries. So this would be about getting the *rest* of Europe up to the same level.
So that could, potentially, be popular across the political spectrum in Poland. And in countries in their situation. Which would add up to a fair number of votes in the councils of Europe.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
It's hard to believe that the party of Reagan and Bush are now Putin's willing catamites.
I am mentally prepared for the GOP to walk away from NATO.
European Army here we come.
European army with Hungary kicked out of the EU.
A European Army doesn't mean an automaticity of having EU membership.
Although it will set the cat amongst the pigeons in Ireland.
If the Irish play silly beggars then we need a modern day Pope Adrian IV.
I heard an interesting comment from a Polish friend. He thinks that Tusk will push for a mandatory level of defence spending in the EU.
I suspect Tusk will have his hands full with the extent of domestic opposition and pushback he'll get from the PiS President - who has veto powers - and with the media and other institutions stuffed full of his opponents.
Yes - but the interesting bit of such a policy is that Poland will be spending a high amount of defence for the foreseeable. As will a number of the Eastern European countries. So this would be about getting the *rest* of Europe up to the same level.
So that could, potentially, be popular across the political spectrum in Poland. And in countries in their situation. Which would add up to a fair number of votes in the councils of Europe.
For sure. I just don't think their new government will have that much time or politcal capital to spend on international stuff.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
"Our website is currently unavailable Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023. We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
Didn’t they have a proper offline backup of their key systems?
Pleased I’m not their (about to be former) Head of IT.
The Russian cyberhacks can be incredibly destructive and British cyber hygiene is generally horrible. I always digitally disinfect my phones when I get back to Estonia, which has extremely good cyber defences overall.
Listening to further stuff from the Post Office inquiry, it is striking that the correspondence about the integrity of the computer system, both within the PO and within and between their various legal advisors, is all from a perspective of belief, marshalling arguments and evidence and reports as you might defend a political viewpoint that was always going to remain contestable. Yet the system was telling the postmaster how much money they should have in hand at the end of the day, and was either correct or it was not, as a simple matter of fact.
If there was anyone there who, as the mountain of challenges and contrary evidence grew higher, asked the obvious question whether it could just be checked (until it was way way too late), the evidence hasn't yet appeared.
It will also be interesting to discover how exactly the shortfalls occurred, and in the bigger scheme of things how commonly.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
For me, there are two very interesting things about this:
1) Apple's meteoric rise has continued even after the death of Jobs. 2) Apple's increased investment in cutting-edge technology over the last decade is succeeding.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
What did cockroaches do to deserve that?
Worrying as cockroaches are nature's great survivors...
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
Incredible. That has a "Tokyo real estate in 1991 was worth more than the whole of America" feel to it. Wish I'd bought into it and if I had I think I'd be selling some now.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
Yes. Suspended. Could have fought a by-election. Chose not to.
That would have required a vote of the house, which didn’t happen. It may have been very likely to happen, but that doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t happen.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
For me, there are two very interesting things about this:
1) Apple's meteoric rise has continued even after the death of Jobs. 2) Apple's increased investment in cutting-edge technology over the last decade is succeeding.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
Yes. Suspended. Could have fought a by-election. Chose not to.
That would have required a vote of the house, which didn’t happen. It may have been very likely to happen, but that doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t happen.
My takeaway from it all was that not only is Johnson a liar, he's also a coward.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
For me, there are two very interesting things about this:
1) Apple's meteoric rise has continued even after the death of Jobs. 2) Apple's increased investment in cutting-edge technology over the last decade is succeeding.
I didn't realise till recently just how much of the USA phone market they have. Like half the USA buys a new iphone 15 pro or some such every time it's released.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
Incredible. That has a "Tokyo real estate in 1991 was worth more than the whole of America" feel to it. Wish I'd bought into it and if I had I think I'd be selling some now.
The difference is that the Tokyo real estate thing was an unrealisable nonsense caused by a boom.
Apple’s price/earnings says the valuation isn’t that out of line with norms.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
Almost a million households face 15pc council tax rise.
Large council tax increases in April just before a May election with local councils, of all colours and hues, blaming central govt funding will play badly for the Tories.
It is one thing when incompetently run councils, like Nottingham, fail to balance the books but we are seeing councils have not been as badly run being affected too.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
The villain of the Catford panto is called "Boris the Lying Cockroach".
"Boris the Lying Spider" would be even better. Theres a ready made sound track to play whenever boris enters the stage.
Surprise of the night - LibDem gain in North Kesteven.
Is it that surprising?
In once-"safe" Tory Oxfordshire, there are several explanations for LDs' local success amid continuing GE iffiness: : 1. Local elections allow something like Proportional Representation in a parliamentary constituency. West Oxfordshire District, on current boundaries, covers the same geography as Witney parliamentary constituency. It's currently run by an LD/Lab/Green coalition of its 49 councillors, but the polls probably forecast a Tory hold in its one Parliamentary seat. Because the anti-Tory vote splits three ways in the GE, but swings to LD, Lab or Green in the individual District seats. There's little point whining that the anti-Tories "ought" to combine for the GE: the voters don't like it - and the activists really, really, really don't like it
2. Most voters don't turn out in local elections, but do in GEs. The collapse of Tory activists means there just isn't the activist pressure in locals to vote anyway - and this lack of ground activity favours LD/Lab/Green. It's also why RefUK has made no inroads in local elections
3. Generally, a substantial proportion of voters in local elections know the candidates (if only by word of mouth recommendations) and vote accordingly: voters in GEs decide on what they perceive to be national issues. LD candidates tend to be far more popular (and visible) in the seats they represent than their party's national policies are.
1 isn't true at all. It's not uncommon for local election results to be less proportional than GEs. 2 is more correctly "more" voters don't turn out. Both local election and GE turnouts vary, but the latter are always higher (except when they are concurrent). 3 can be true, more typically of small towns and rural wards, less so in the cities. In London more people know who their MP is than their councillor.
Anyhow educated remainy Oxfordshire is a long way away from the politics and demography of Lincolnshire, and the Kesteven result is a surprise. The most you can say is that Lincs has something of a tradition of opting for independents over the big parties, at local election level. And that the LibDems in Lincs seem to be doing some energetic campaigning recently in an area where they've previously had little activity.
There's also another issue: voters may like local Lib Dem policies for their area, while still voting for another party nationally. The reasons I vote Conservative are all because of economics and other policies determined at a national level, I try to vote on local issues at local elections and I am happy to vote for another party.
Ukraine is going to be under serious pressure with the restrictions on aid in the US and now this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67724357 I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
No chance. Nowhere near that desperate. And whatever problems Ukraine has, Russia has in equal measure.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
I tend to agree with you. And Putin's latest rhetoric is that 'coming to terms' will mean giving up even more territory - he really wants the south coast to connect up with Transnistria.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
Famously, the Allied forces in Normandy after some months had losses exceeding 100% (it's a plot point in "Band of Brothers"). Soldiers die and are replaced. That's what happens in a war. Provided Putin can replace them (and he's just mobilised another 170k?) it isn't an issue unless he loses the Presidential election (March/May 2024)
As for the link to Transnistria: yes. I did point that out! I think the Ukrainians should start laying down their own minefields...☹️
According to another figure I've seen, only 1/3 of all Allied troops who went to Europe after D-Day fired their gun in anger.
The issue is that countries with advanced economies have far less capacity to 'replace' troops than was the case 80-100 years ago.
Also be careful with Putin's use of troop numbers: it's alleged that as Russia acknowledges few deaths/injuries to their troops, they include them in their troop numbers. Which I hope the leadership really believe, as lying to yourself is a great way to lose a war...
While clearly Ukraine is still under the cosh, with little real movement of the front this year, both sides have taken enormous casualties, even if Ukraines are half of Russias.
The equipment casualties must be massive on both sides, and what is still in action must be wearing out and needing replacement or refurbishment. We are at 1916 rather than 1918.
Negotiation isn't really an option when Putin speaks of denazififacation, demillitarisation and neutrality as his unchanged objectives. At best that means regime change and a puppet state, at worst occupation.
So almost certainly the stalemate grinds on. Russias tactics at Avdiivka don't sound very sophisticated, but attrition favours the more numerous force.
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Nevertheless a couple of PB Boris supporters have repeatedly claimed he was ousted for "eating birthday cake".
He’s been in positive territory ever since Boris quit. What a gift that was for him
And now he’s making speeches equating mass immigration with low wages.
By the end of Boris’s time Starmer was giving him a weekly dressing down in PMQs. Sure, he had good material to go on - repeatedly catching him out for lying, and watching while we got half apology after half apology - but that was the time I think Starmer hit his stride in parliament. And Boris was by then a shadow of his former self. Truss then gave him a series of wonderful open goals of course, and the opportunity to start using humour, which he was never able to do with Boris.
Yes, Boris getting an FPN was the perfect storm for Sir Keir. What made it even better was that Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all; the fine was for sitting in his office having some birthday cake, deliberately captured on film by the PMs official photographer. So his attitude made for a great contrast with Starmer’s appalled, pious lawyer schtick.
You know your narrative is bollocks so why do you persist with it? Johnson attended multiple illegal events during lockdown. If you believe him that he didn't realise they were parties, you must agree he had no business being Prime Minister.
Sorry? I said ‘Boris didn’t think he’d done anything that bad, if anything wrong at all’. This is evident; he had the official photographer take pictures of it. He didn’t think it was breaking the rules, hence his lack of contrition. What I think about it is neither here nor there, but those are the facts.
Those really are not the "facts". Johnson attended multiple events contrary to rules he set. Those are the facts. In the news students were being fined £10,000 for attending similar events. Those students are still being harassed by bailiffs. No 10 was a disgrace and Johnson was in charge of no 10. It is disingenuous to suggest he was unaware that he was attending events contrary to his laws. Perhaps he felt he was above his own laws.
There is an argument that these were work events, that the presence of alcohol or a birthday cake didn't change that, that it is normal for the sake of morale to celebrate birthdays and people leaving, and that it was for the employer to determine that, that might have covered at least some events, but no-one seems to have made the argument.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
Work events sure, happy to accept that. The law was reasonably necessary for work purposes. Do you think there is an argument that without these events work would have been impossible?
Frankly the leadership of No 10, both civil service and political failed to match what the rest of the country did. The NHS didn't socialise at the end of a shift because they had been together all day anyway . I have long said that most of the 'parties' were pathetic little events, nothing like the fantasy of the recent C4 program. But even so, the rest of the country didn't do it, and No 19 shouldn't have either.
And let's remember this is not why Boris Johnson was ousted. That he was brought down by illegal socialising during lockdown is a rewrite of history. It wasn't that. It was the lying. Lying to his colleagues, lying to parliament. He was ejected from the House for the latter.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Pedant mode, but he wasn’t ejected from the house, he resigned.
Yes. Suspended. Could have fought a by-election. Chose not to.
That would have required a vote of the house, which didn’t happen. It may have been very likely to happen, but that doesn’t change the fact that it didn’t happen.
You are (again) correct. He got in first with a resignation, didn't he. Let's go for a wrap with "resigned in abject disgrace". I think this is true by letter and in spirit.
Comments
https://twitter.com/ThatEricAlper/status/1735299037916479955/photo/1
I fear that by the New Year they will be forced to come to terms with Russia.
By New Year? Listen to yourself.
And in other news, the numbers of Russia's losses are truly staggering.
"Russia has had 315,000 of its troops killed or injured in Ukraine, the equivalent of nearly 90 per cent of the total number of soldiers it sent to war when the invasion first began, a declassified US intelligence report said."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-losses-in-ukraine-war-cia-b2463129.html
They remain willing and able to fight but the Ukrainian state simply cannot operate without western cash. They do not have the resources to maintain their war effort unaided. The Republicans in Congress and Hungary in the EU are a real threat to Ukraine.
As for the link to Transnistria: yes. I did point that out! I think the Ukrainians should start laying down their own minefields...☹️
But the Lib Dem Lincolnshire success is a bit unsurprising in a way. "Where we work, we win" has been a sandalista mantra forever. (There's little more satisfying in elections than holding off a Lib Dem kitchen sink campaign.)
There are plenty of places where a full on Lib Dem campaign would win- the limiting factor is often how many/few campaigns can run simultaneously.
Two implications, I reckon. First is that the Lid Dem hit rate next year may well be excellent, the unknown is how many targets they have. The second is that people thinking like Lib Dems probably overestimate the mountain Labour have to climb. From a LD ground war perspective, it looks hard. But if Labour's plan is an air war, it's much easier.
But a plausibly technocratic manner disguises two truths about [Sunak]. The first is that he has a weakness for silly ideas. He is a true believer in Brexit and was a supporter of Mr Johnson becoming prime minister. He is a big fan of freeports, which tend only to displace economic activity. The Rwanda policy is another gimmick, first conjured up around the same time as officials were wondering whether to install wave machines in the Channel. (He is capable of killing schemes but the biggest thing he has amputated—hs2, a high-speed rail project—was worth keeping.)
The second truth about Mr Sunak is that he is not very good at politics. In the past few weeks he has set himself up as an agent of change only to bring David Cameron back into the cabinet; picked a pointless row with the Greek prime minister over some 2,500-year-old bits of stone; and sacked a home secretary he should never have appointed. Rwanda started out as a policy whim; Mr Sunak has stupidly turned it into a totem.
All of the Brexit behaviours were back on view this week.
The tale of Tory factionalism is very familiar. But that is the tragedy. Mr Sunak is using a deeply flawed bill to try to force through a bad policy. The Rwanda debate is sucking up political oxygen, stopping the government from doing more useful things and giving the Labour Party an easier ride than it deserves. None of this is normal. Only this government makes it seem so.
The argument for “clean” centres where people can take their drugs in relative safety and those drugs can be tested for them becomes ever more compelling. We simply cannot go on like this.
The latest YouGov has Labour’s lead at 22 points (despite Stats for Leftie’s mislabelling an 11 point Deltapoll lead as YouGov) but I don’t see you coming on here shouting about that.
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_231213_W.pdf
European Army here we come.
Tony Blair banned fox hunting after receiving a £1 million donation to Labour from an animal rights group, Peter Mandelson has said.
The former business secretary claimed the organisation put the then Labour leader “under pressure” to ban the countryside pursuit.
He said the debate got “pretty transactional” and said the animal rights body insisted on the ban “in return” for money.
The Labour peer did not identify the group involved, but in 1996 animal rights campaigner Brian Davies, who founded the International Fund for Animal Welfare, gave the party £1 million.
A spokeswoman for Sir Tony said on Thursday that there was “no such agreement” and that there were a lot of people with passionate views on the subject.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/14/tony-blair-fox-hunting-ban-million-donation-lord-mandelson/
Mr. kle4, Putin, Orban, the Republicans are akin to Hanno arguing that if Hannibal's winning he doesn't need reinforcements and if he's losing he doesn't deserve them.
Suspect that's a useful apprenticeship and it's a mistake to try to microwave past that step.
Or if they'd said "it's been a hard week, you can have alcohol at your desk from 4pm Friday"
But I strongly suspect that what it shows is that Boris felt he could not only flout the law, but flaunt it.
British Library:
"Our website is currently unavailable
Last updated: 5pm on Friday, 8 December 2023.
We're experiencing a major technology outage following a cyber-attack affecting our website, online systems and services, and some onsite services. However, our buildings are still open as usual. We anticipate restoring more services in the next few weeks, but disruption to certain services is now expected to persist for several months."
https://www.bl.uk/
https://www.techneuk.com/tracker/
NEW POLL: Labour lead by 22 points:
Lab: 44% (-1)
Con: 22% (=)
Lib Dem: 12% (=)
Reform: 9% (+1)
Green: 7% (=)
SNP: 3% (=)
Others: 3% (=)
👥 1,637 questioned
🗓️ +/- 6/7 December
The issue is that countries with advanced economies have far less capacity to 'replace' troops than was the case 80-100 years ago.
Also be careful with Putin's use of troop numbers: it's alleged that as Russia acknowledges few deaths/injuries to their troops, they include them in their troop numbers. Which I hope the leadership really believe, as lying to yourself is a great way to lose a war...
And, as is often the way, the lack of truth made it all worse.
In once-"safe" Tory Oxfordshire, there are several explanations for LDs' local success amid continuing GE iffiness:
:
1. Local elections allow something like Proportional Representation in a parliamentary constituency. West Oxfordshire District, on current boundaries, covers the same geography as Witney parliamentary constituency. It's currently run by an LD/Lab/Green coalition of its 49 councillors, but the polls probably forecast a Tory hold in its one Parliamentary seat. Because the anti-Tory vote splits three ways in the GE, but swings to LD, Lab or Green in the individual District seats.
There's little point whining that the anti-Tories "ought" to combine for the GE: the voters don't like it - and the activists really, really, really don't like it
2. Most voters don't turn out in local elections, but do in GEs. The collapse of Tory activists means there just isn't the activist pressure in locals to vote anyway - and this lack of ground activity favours LD/Lab/Green. It's also why RefUK has made no inroads in local elections
3. Generally, a substantial proportion of voters in local elections know the candidates (if only by word of mouth recommendations) and vote accordingly: voters in GEs decide on what they perceive to be national issues. LD candidates tend to be far more popular (and visible) in the seats they represent than their party's national policies are.
It got to the point where people couldn't trust him. By the end he couldn't even rustle up the numbers to form a government. It is not tenable to be PM if parliament deems you unfit to be an MP and nobody is prepared to work for you. Either of these ends your premiership and with Johnson it was both.
Didn’t they have a proper offline backup of their key systems?
Pleased I’m not their (about to be former) Head of IT.
Jan Marsalek is one of the world’s most wanted men, after $2 billion disappeared from his ex company Wirecard. Now he’s got a new Russian identity, hangs out in Dubai and still works for Russia’s services - as he has for nearly a decade. @WSJ
https://twitter.com/bopanc/status/1735582701757825506
Same as the reason that people stay in relationships that anyone else can see are destroying them. It's easier to hope that things will get better than admit that it was a terrible mistake.
But the key thing about Johnson is that he lies. Not just fail to tell the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth, but flat out lies. That matters.
With normal, bad-but-tolerated political dissembling, you can eventually get to the truth. It requires masses of effort, lots of time, and the experience to interpret "I don't recall the answer to that question" as "you've got me bang to rights, but I can't bring myself to admit it", but it can be done. It's not admirable, but the sort of slipperiness shown by Sunak or Starmer is tolerable, becuase the system has a way to cope with it.
With Johnson's degrees of lying, not even that is possible. Hence the taboo.
On immigration and wages. Because of a world wide shortage of degreed and qualified white collar professionals (Doctors etc), there is no practical level of immigration that can reduce wages.
There are two other tiers of the economy - the lower paid jobs and the frankly illegal conditions of the black economy. Here, there are much less shortages of the skills worldwide. So immigration does affect wages in both groups.
Anyhow educated remainy Oxfordshire is a long way away from the politics and demography of Lincolnshire, and the Kesteven result is a surprise. The most you can say is that Lincs has something of a tradition of opting for independents over the big parties, at local election level. And that the LibDems in Lincs seem to be doing some energetic campaigning recently in an area where they've previously had little activity.
So that could, potentially, be popular across the political spectrum in Poland. And in countries in their situation. Which would add up to a fair number of votes in the councils of Europe.
Apple's market value is nearing a wild milestone: It's about to overtake the French stock market — Europe's largest. The tech behemoth's shares closed at another record high on Thursday, bringing its market value to about $3.1 trillion; the combined market value of the companies on France's exchange is $3.2 trillion. Apple's stock is up more than 50% this year
https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/apple-is-almost-as-big-as-france-5853380/
If there was anyone there who, as the mountain of challenges and contrary evidence grew higher, asked the obvious question whether it could just be checked (until it was way way too late), the evidence hasn't yet appeared.
It will also be interesting to discover how exactly the shortfalls occurred, and in the bigger scheme of things how commonly.
1) Apple's meteoric rise has continued even after the death of Jobs.
2) Apple's increased investment in cutting-edge technology over the last decade is succeeding.
And another minor point:
If you look at their share price, the majority of the rise has been in the last decade (ten-f;old rise since Jan 2014):
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/stock-price-history
Intel is way behind on this.
Even before it turned out to be a brilliant architecture to run LLMs on.
Apple’s price/earnings says the valuation isn’t that out of line with norms.
Large council tax increases in April just before a May election with local councils, of all colours and hues, blaming central govt funding will play badly for the Tories.
It is one thing when incompetently run councils, like Nottingham, fail to balance the books but we are seeing councils have not been as badly run being affected too.
Still, that NI Cut !!!!
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/almost-a-million-households-face-15pc-council-tax-rise-as-two-local-authorities-warn-of-bankruptcy/ar-AA1lvTeM?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=656fdeda56464564a855d7e433ccb327&ei=15
What is the split of costs...
The equipment casualties must be massive on both sides, and what is still in action must be wearing out and needing replacement or refurbishment. We are at 1916 rather than 1918.
Negotiation isn't really an option when Putin speaks of denazififacation, demillitarisation and neutrality as his unchanged objectives. At best that means regime change and a puppet state, at worst occupation.
So almost certainly the stalemate grinds on. Russias tactics at Avdiivka don't sound very sophisticated, but attrition favours the more numerous force.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/14/ukrainian-defenders-of-avdiivka-hold-on-for-now