Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Sir Keir’s supporters should just take the win and move on - it’s obvious he bent the rules to breaking point, you only have to watch his squirming when challenged by the BBC on it. But he got away with it
There’s not a fag paper between his Durham beers and what Boris was fined for, not that either amounted to a hill of beans
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Stop arse-licking Trump. It’s pathetic.
lol
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix
What is quite amazing is the fact that no one will criticise Biden despite so many glaring objective failings (afghanistan, now quite possibly Ukraine).
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Stop arse-licking Trump. It’s pathetic.
lol
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
Trump had four YEARS to, ah, encourage Putin to withdraw.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
It’s a measure of the embarrassment here that TwitterX is full of Democrat Americans denying the FT “brazen Ukrainians” story - and saying it’s all made up by the Russians to embarrass Biden
* Putin can't just lend Trump lots of money. * Besides, Trump is loonier than he was, and I doubt either Xi or Putin want him back in office. * Meanwhile in Britain, both of Sunak's last two predecessors as prime minister have both backed Trump for this year's USPE. * Biden on foreign policy? Well he must have jinxed Varadkar. And how's the snazzy only-takes-a-week floating superport for Gaza going?
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
Trump had four YEARS to, ah, encourage Putin to withdraw.
Can you do one of your bar charts to show Russia's territorial gains under Obama, Trump and Biden respectively?
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Stop arse-licking Trump. It’s pathetic.
lol
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix
What is quite amazing is the fact that no one will criticise Biden despite so many glaring objective failings (afghanistan, now quite possibly Ukraine).
Won't they ? I've often criticised his timidity on Ukraine. But it's 100% better than the current GOP policy which is effective surrender.
There is a bill in Congress to resume arms supplies to Ukraine, which will get the presidential signature as soon as it's passed. The Senate has voted it through. Trump opposes it, and as a result, it can't pass the House.
You can argue as much as you like about peripheral details, but those are the facts.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
On Forbes and the same-sex marriage issue, as long as you are a democrat there is no special reason why this should be a massive deal, in just the same way that many Catholic MPs always vote against abortion without being driven out of politics.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge about the end of the Afghan regime. Read up. Trump set it in motion. Biden then had to deal with the horrific fall-out of the US-backed regime giving up in seven days.
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
Watching Leon and William metaphorically pleasuring each other on Trump's behalf is a vile spectacle.
For full effect, they should have their first meeting aboard a ship and bring their cats. They of course, being women, are Jonahs. But cats bring good luck. And thus the tension rises.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
It’s just telling that you compared it to having a ready meal at work, and Sir Keir at the time was keen to emphasise that ‘some food turned up’ while he was at work, when having a few beers with friends, as he did, is what millions of people were desperate to do
His defenders don’t say “I was at work at the time and regularly had a glass of wine/dram of whiskey with colleagues”, they say “ate a sandwich” or “had a ready meal”
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
Trump had four YEARS to, ah, encourage Putin to withdraw.
Can you do one of your bar charts to show Russia's territorial gains under Obama, Trump and Biden respectively?
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Sir Keir’s supporters should just take the win and move on - it’s obvious he bent the rules to breaking point, you only have to watch his squirming when challenged by the BBC on it. But he got away with it
There’s not a fag paper between his Durham beers and what Boris was fined for, not that either amounted to a hill of beans
But it did. There is no comparison. Johnson's Partygate behaviour should preclude him from the return you dream about.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Tut tut. You shouldn’t call Emily by her hubby’s name @isam !
But, I agree with you on the flag. Stupid idea. It’s sensible that the England shirt bears the English flag.
It’s a measure of the embarrassment here that TwitterX is full of Democrat Americans denying the FT “brazen Ukrainians” story - and saying it’s all made up by the Russians to embarrass Biden
Desperate stuff
When you look at the steady destruction of the Black Sea fleet and the near elimination of Russian’s aerial radar capability (a-50s) in recent months, it feels to me like the US strategy is to get Ukraine ready for the peace, rather than fighting the war. F16s come 2026 safely patrolling Ukrainian airspace, grain / trade corridors freely open.
What the US is not cool with any more is a proper attempt to sever the landbridge or anything “escalatory” on Russian soil.
The gamble is that the Ukrainian line fails to hold or that Putin isn’t emboldened to broaden his conflict (Kosovo, Moldova or even the Baltics).
Feels like people in Washington/Langley who are not as smart as they think they are playing games
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
The retreat from Afghanistan was essentially Trump's - Biden inherited the sharp end.
Stop defending Biden. It’s pathetic
What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge about the end of the Afghan regime. Read up. Trump set it in motion. Biden then had to deal with the horrific fall-out of the US-backed regime giving up in seven days.
Trump also says that Biden left umpteen billions of dollars worth of kit for the Taliban to plunder. The number he uses is the total cost of everything spent in Afghanistan in twenty years. Fantasy stuff. Anything useful to the Taliban was either extracted or torched.
Watching Leon and William metaphorically pleasuring each other on Trump's behalf is a vile spectacle.
Do you think the FT’s story - about the Biden White House getting annoyed at the “brazen” Ukrainians for attacking Russia - is true? Or do you think it was made up by Putin as disinfo?
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Sir Keir’s supporters should just take the win and move on - it’s obvious he bent the rules to breaking point, you only have to watch his squirming when challenged by the BBC on it. But he got away with it
There’s not a fag paper between his Durham beers and what Boris was fined for, not that either amounted to a hill of beans
But it did. There is no comparison. Johnson's Partygate behaviour should preclude him from the return you dream about.
The only thing Boris was fined for was the cake. If we are going to be all ‘letter of the law’ about Sir Keir’s beers then it has to work both ways
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
It’s just telling that you compared it to having a ready meal at work, and Sir Keir at the time was keen to emphasise that ‘some food turned up’ while he was at work, when having a few beers with friends, as he did, is what millions of people were desperate to do
I took would have been perfectly at liberty to crack open a can of Stella to have with my Tesco sandwich. My beer soaked lunch was perfectly legal within the rules of the day and it wasn't an Abba Karaoke party.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
And what else is a man supposed to drink with his curry? Probably the only time I consume multiple pints of fizzy lager.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
And what else is a man supposed to drink with his curry? Probably the only time I consume multiple pints of fizzy lager.
🔺 BREAKING: Kate Forbes has suggested that Humza Yousaf lacks a “big vision” for Scotland and confirmed that she would likely run again to be leader of the SNP.
His own MSPs challenging his policies in the chamber as well.
Knives are out.
Suspect Forbes is the candidate the unionists fear. Strongly pro independence and pro business. Could mop up a few Tory votes. She needs to handle the same-sex marriage question better but I assume she has figured that out by now.
On Forbes and the same-sex marriage issue, as long as you are a democrat there is no special reason why this should be a massive deal, in just the same way that many Catholic MPs always vote against abortion without being driven out of politics.
Indeed so. She simply needs to say that it’s a personal matter for her but she would neither seek to change the law nor impose her views on others.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
BTW Emily T breathing fire about this on the media today is comedy gold.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
It’s just telling that you compared it to having a ready meal at work, and Sir Keir at the time was keen to emphasise that ‘some food turned up’ while he was at work, when having a few beers with friends, as he did, is what millions of people were desperate to do
I took would have been perfectly at liberty to crack open a can of Stella to have with my Tesco sandwich. My beer soaked lunch was perfectly legal within the rules of the day and it wasn't an Abba Karaoke party.
Oh we're back to "actually SKS and Johnson are the same."
The Police investigated SKS, twice. TWICE! The second under pressure from the government which in of itself is very troubling and should make anyone who values democracy very worried.
Johnson set the rules. He said there were no parties. He lied. Then he was pictured at the parties. He said all rules were followed. He lied again. Then he said the parties happened and he was sorry for breaking the rules. The Police disagreed.
This is why SKS is currently 27 points ahead, having run rings around the so-called "politics experts" ever since he was elected.
You underestimate his skill at your peril. And your continuing to do so means he's possible to now win the largest Labour majority ever.
I think it's fair to say that Biden really messed up in Afghanistan, and that led Putin to believe that the US would do nothing in the event of a Ukraine invasion. It's also true that Putin did not attack Ukraine while Trump was President, albeit that is probably more to do with Russian readiness than who was in the White House.
The Biden administration could also have done more to send aid to Ukraine, especially before the midterm elections.
Against that, it is undoubtedly true that it has been the Republicans who have been most obstructive on Ukraine aid since the midterms. They have repeatedly dangled the possibility of aid, only to pull the rug out. And this obstruction has been explicitly backed by Trump.
Personally, I think a much bigger problem is in Europe, where governments did not ramp up defense procurement fast enough following the invasion. This has meant that there are nowhere near enough consumables available to ship to Ukraine. That's now changing, but it will take until the end of this year before you start to see significant quantities of ammunition, etc being produced.
All is not over for Ukraine, mind. Russian advances are grindingly slow, their supply lines are lengthening, and they will be losing more troops and equipment every day.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
I fear your 'defence' is more political than it is epidemiological. It was a crass thing to do - and what happened was a heck of a lot more than a meal deal in an office.
You are moving your accusation from breaking the law to breaking wisdom criteria.
The key is did he break the law, not was he unwise? If we track back to Johnson it would appear he was both.
Sir Keir’s supporters should just take the win and move on - it’s obvious he bent the rules to breaking point, you only have to watch his squirming when challenged by the BBC on it. But he got away with it
There’s not a fag paper between his Durham beers and what Boris was fined for, not that either amounted to a hill of beans
But it did. There is no comparison. Johnson's Partygate behaviour should preclude him from the return you dream about.
The only thing Boris was fined for was the cake. If we are going to be all ‘letter of the law’ about Sir Keir’s beers then it has to work both ways
Only because the Met didn't investigate Johnson for events he attended, events from which they fined other attendees.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
It’s just telling that you compared it to having a ready meal at work, and Sir Keir at the time was keen to emphasise that ‘some food turned up’ while he was at work, when having a few beers with friends, as he did, is what millions of people were desperate to do
I took would have been perfectly at liberty to crack open a can of Stella to have with my Tesco sandwich. My beer soaked lunch was perfectly legal within the rules of the day and it wasn't an Abba Karaoke party.
So it was, but you chose to say ‘ready meal’
Have you tried Beans-On-Naan, isam? Simple and tasty
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
And what else is a man supposed to drink with his curry? Probably the only time I consume multiple pints of fizzy lager.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
You mean the territory he seized while Obama was president? The man who mocked Mitt Romney for saying that Russia was the biggest threat.
Trump had four YEARS to, ah, encourage Putin to withdraw.
Can you do one of your bar charts to show Russia's territorial gains under Obama, Trump and Biden respectively?
Compliance!
That's a good start. You need to break the bars down into which US President was in office when the territory was occupied.
Oh we're back to "actually SKS and Johnson are the same."
The Police investigated SKS, twice. TWICE! The second under pressure from the government which in of itself is very troubling and should make anyone who values democracy very worried.
Johnson set the rules. He said there were no parties. He lied. Then he was pictured at the parties. He said all rules were followed. He lied again. Then he said the parties happened and he was sorry for breaking the rules. The Police disagreed.
This is why SKS is currently 27 points ahead, having run rings around the so-called "politics experts" ever since he was elected.
You underestimate his skill at your peril. And your continuing to do so means he's possible to now win the largest Labour majority ever.
I think we also have hit a tipping point. Enough of the voting public want a Labour, SKS led, government that events have their own momentum. There is no will to bring him down, and, barring something horrific and mind blowing, nothing will until at least after the GE.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
I think that's a misreading of him. People are allergic to Trump because he isn't allergic to Putin, but that doesn't mean that Trump is in Putin's pocket or would never see any advantage in humbling him.
Exactly right. Trump is all about Trump. He is an enormous orange blob of male ego. He doesn’t talk chummily about Putin and Xi and Erdogan and the Korean freak because he actually likes them, nor is it cause he’s scared of them
He does it because he wants to be seen as a strongman akin to them, a potent world leader talking man to man with his equivalents
If any of them did anything to puncture that ego, he’d go after them. I could easily see him turning on Putin. Look how Trump talks about China NOW - not very friendly at all
Stop arse-licking Trump. It’s pathetic.
lol
I just called him “an enormous orange blob of male ego”
I’m not a fan. Not a big Trumpite. However, unlike many on here I am able to see things objectively even if Trump is in the mix
What is quite amazing is the fact that no one will criticise Biden despite so many glaring objective failings (afghanistan, now quite possibly Ukraine).
Won't they ? I've often criticised his timidity on Ukraine. But it's 100% better than the current GOP policy which is effective surrender.
There is a bill in Congress to resume arms supplies to Ukraine, which will get the presidential signature as soon as it's passed. The Senate has voted it through. Trump opposes it, and as a result, it can't pass the House.
You can argue as much as you like about peripheral details, but those are the facts.
And Trump's campaign promise is to 'end the war in 24 hours'.
Which has only one possible meaning in practice - throw Ukraine under the bus.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Tut tut. You shouldn’t call Emily by her hubby’s name @isam !
But, I agree with you on the flag. Stupid idea. It’s sensible that the England shirt bears the English flag.
It’s the endless desire of the designers/marketers to change things. To justify their existence.
See the BA attempt to rebrand under Thatcher. Which collapsed when Virgin said that if BA didn’t want the Union Jack, they did.
Some years ago, knew someone at the Wallace Collection. She was rather amused by the fury of the other academics there - they aren’t allowed to change the collection, under the rules of the bequest. So no “interpretations”, “re-imaginings” etc. they actually spent a fair bit of money trying to break the rules of the bequest.
She got treated rather aggressively when she pointed out that new spaces had been added, not in the original house - they could do new stuff there.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
Yes, that’s a nice side effect. She wasn’t keen on the type of people who liked St George flags a decade ago was she? Nothing like a bit of confected fury
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
Kremlin spokesperson Peskov has referred to Russia's aggression in Ukraine as a "state of war" for the first time, diverging from the term "special military operation," according to AFP. https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1771175168808788037
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
It’s just unnecessarily antagonistic and as you say a designer “having fun” without realising that designs need to either serve a function or look appealing and this does neither.
The point about a national team football shirt is that it’s part of representing the nation so is clearly one place where national symbols are appropriate and shouldn’t be messed with.
One thing it’s not however is “woke” as it’s not any sort of symbol for any movement and so attacking it on that reasoning is a bit silly.
Unfortunately the BBC had Peter Shilton on trying to be the anti-change spokesman this morning and it wouldn’t have taken Maradonna to tie him in knots. Was a bit mean or a bit sneaky using him as one side of the debate.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Yes. This is the company that practically invented the identity of "urban youth". They know what they're doing.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
I perused the thread which was pointed to by those claiming Ukraine were on the cusp of defeat and...
Perhaps I was looking at a different thread or AI has a powerful language algorithm which projects on to the screen the words I subconsciously want to see but the thread I read suggested a brutal, attritional confluct more or less static - almost as though WW1 were being fought in a semi-urban environment.
I'm sure it's a thousand times worse on the ground let alone for any civilians unable to unwilling to escape.
Two years and a month on and the stalemate continues and to be honest that works fine for almost everyone - not for the Ukrainians of course and arguably not for some Russians but for the rest of us, it's contained, it's brutal but it can sit in the background.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
It’s just unnecessarily antagonistic and as you say a designer “having fun” without realising that designs need to either serve a function or look appealing and this does neither.
The point about a national team football shirt is that it’s part of representing the nation so is clearly one place where national symbols are appropriate and shouldn’t be messed with.
One thing it’s not however is “woke” as it’s not any sort of symbol for any movement and so attacking it on that reasoning is a bit silly.
Unfortunately the BBC had Peter Shilton on trying to be the anti-change spokesman this morning and it wouldn’t have taken Maradonna to tie him in knots. Was a bit mean or a bit sneaky using him as one side of the debate.
You'd think buying the fucking thing was compulsory the way people are carrying on.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Not so sure it’s a case of “all good publicity, etc”. Nike have also made themselves unpopular in Germany as the German National Team announced yesterday that their kit is shifting to Nike from the German Adidas and it’s being hammered as an unpatriotic scandal.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
It can be a bit purrplexing but if you put your thinking cat on and think pawsitively enough then I find it stops stressing meowt.
Really pathetic to see people on here prostrating themselves over Trump under the claim of "balance". Trump has been nothing but a cuck to Putin. While it's true that Trump is all about Trump, that means he would gladly sacrifice American interest for his benefit. That is why he tried to blackmail Zelensky with aid for his own campaign back in the day. It is why he stole top secret documents and hid them in Mar-a-Lago. It is why he showed the nuclear football to half his guests.
The reason he is bending over for Putin isn't entirely clear, but likely some combination of bribery or blackmail.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
It’s just unnecessarily antagonistic and as you say a designer “having fun” without realising that designs need to either serve a function or look appealing and this does neither.
The point about a national team football shirt is that it’s part of representing the nation so is clearly one place where national symbols are appropriate and shouldn’t be messed with.
One thing it’s not however is “woke” as it’s not any sort of symbol for any movement and so attacking it on that reasoning is a bit silly.
Unfortunately the BBC had Peter Shilton on trying to be the anti-change spokesman this morning and it wouldn’t have taken Maradonna to tie him in knots. Was a bit mean or a bit sneaky using him as one side of the debate.
But football strips *are* the epitome of weird design. Like finding peanuts in a monkey house. What were you expecting, Eric Gill or the Underground map chappie?
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
Just a designer having fun, apparently.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
As the only PBer with an Archbishop of Canterbury and an Archiepiscopal teddy bear in my avatar: don't tell them that.
That makes it Italian, because Episcopal Purple is derived from the Roman Senate, and the Emperors.
I perused the thread which was pointed to by those claiming Ukraine were on the cusp of defeat and...
Perhaps I was looking at a different thread or AI has a powerful language algorithm which projects on to the screen the words I subconsciously want to see but the thread I read suggested a brutal, attritional confluct more or less static - almost as though WW1 were being fought in a semi-urban environment.
I'm sure it's a thousand times worse on the ground let alone for any civilians unable to unwilling to escape.
Two years and a month on and the stalemate continues and to be honest that works fine for almost everyone - not for the Ukrainians of course and arguably not for some Russians but for the rest of us, it's contained, it's brutal but it can sit in the background.
Those claiming Ukraine are on the cusp of defeat have mostly been predicting Ukraine on the cusp of defeat for two years with little variation. Maybe they will be right at some point, hopefully not, either way they have no useful insight whatsoever, just parroting out a persistent line without any information that the rest of us are missing.
Biden is implicitly now pro Russia by the logic of some of the most pro-war here.
It might be beyond your reasoning skills to understand. Biden does not want Russia to “win”. But he also does not want it to “lose”.
Also, the "pro-war" people on here are those that want to reward Putin's unnecessary invasion. The anti-war people are those that want to defeat Putin and roll back his aggressive invasion. What achieved more peace in Europe? Defeating Hitler or letting him win?
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
The rainbow emblazoned cat food did make LOL I must admit. Much of this logo bandwagonning is farcical.
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Trump is so weirdly sui generis it is almost impossible to say. I will go this far - I personally reckon Putin would NOT have risked his Ukraine invasion under Trump, just because Trump is so unpredictable. But of course I cannot prove this, no more than you can prove the opposite
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Trump is so weirdly sui generis it is almost impossible to say. I will go this far - I personally reckon Putin would NOT have risked his Ukraine invasion under Trump, just because Trump is so unpredictable. But of course I cannot prove this, no more than you can prove the opposite
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
The idea that Trump would make the world safer is ridiculous.
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
Indeedy-doody.
This is the Trump who got so bored in his daily confidential briefings that they stopped trying to give them to him.
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
He did spend 4 hours each morning "executive time" which was ostensibly watching Fox News. So if geopolitical events consist of a mix of trans scandal at a US high school, reasons why Hillary should be in prison and why we should all take 40 different prescription medications per day with a long list of side effects then yes he was particularly well informed.
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Trump is so weirdly sui generis it is almost impossible to say. I will go this far - I personally reckon Putin would NOT have risked his Ukraine invasion under Trump, just because Trump is so unpredictable. But of course I cannot prove this, no more than you can prove the opposite
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Trump is so weirdly sui generis it is almost impossible to say. I will go this far - I personally reckon Putin would NOT have risked his Ukraine invasion under Trump, just because Trump is so unpredictable. But of course I cannot prove this, no more than you can prove the opposite
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
I notice you didn't answer two of my three questions.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Yes. This is the company that practically invented the identity of "urban youth". They know what they're doing.
Rather difficult to prove, alas - there is a sexuality for every colour these days, remember, so if it were magenta and green it might denote furries for all I know just by chance.
And the colour juxtapositions are not constant.
It looks to my eyes, instead, a sort of 3-D style design with the light changing the colour according to the portrayed angle. Basically just red and blue.
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
Indeedy-doody.
This is the Trump who got so bored in his daily confidential briefings that they stopped trying to give them to him.
His 'watch' was Fox News - items featuring himself.
Biden is implicitly now pro Russia by the logic of some of the most pro-war here.
It might be beyond your reasoning skills to understand. Biden does not want Russia to “win”. But he also does not want it to “lose”.
Also, the "pro-war" people on here are those that want to reward Putin's unnecessary invasion. The anti-war people are those that want to defeat Putin and roll back his aggressive invasion. What achieved more peace in Europe? Defeating Hitler or letting him win?
Did we defeat him by taking care to avoid "brazen" attacks on German territory?
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
What she was saying, rightly or wrongly, was “Look at the type of knuckleheads that vote UKIP”
So the man that took Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies we’re now told would have frightened Russia into not attacking Ukraine .
Delusional .
You don't have to rely on a hypothetical. Putin launched a full-scale invasion under Biden's presidency, after having met Biden. He didn't do it on Trump's watch.
Trump didn't get Putin to withdraw from Crimea or the Donbass.
Afghanistan, Ukraine and Gaza. All on Biden’s watch
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Are you seriously suggesting Trump would have reversed his policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan ? That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ? That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans. Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Trump is so weirdly sui generis it is almost impossible to say. I will go this far - I personally reckon Putin would NOT have risked his Ukraine invasion under Trump, just because Trump is so unpredictable. But of course I cannot prove this, no more than you can prove the opposite
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
I notice you didn't answer two of my three questions.
Because "it is almost impossible to say", as I said
The only case I have any certainty over is Ukraine - Putin would not have gone in, under Trump. And again - as I say - I can't prove this, it is a hunch, like any counterfactuals: like your counterfactuals
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
Indeedy-doody.
This is the Trump who got so bored in his daily confidential briefings that they stopped trying to give them to him.
His 'watch' was Fox News - items featuring himself.
The point is more that other actors have to take into account the response of the US president to events.
Putin knew that Biden would wag his finger, impose sanctions, and send some military aid to Ukraine. Trump being less predictable made it harder for Putin to take risks.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
To speculate, I think it may be an example of the power grab. 'We do it because can'. But, au contraire, it has succeeded in getting Lady Emily T to grab the Cross of St George and dance with it in defence of Merrie England. It's comedy gold from all angles.
In all fairness, Thorners has no apparent issue with the flag of England itself. What she did highlight was the ridiculousness of covering your entire house in England flags and (presumably) creating an eyesore for your neighbours. She was unfairly traduced for that: my wife (and probably most women) think similarly!
Exactly. Yet another example of people prone to calling lefties humourless unable to handle a bit of humour.
Meanwhile thanks @StillWaters for the link to the taxpolicy.org article.
Crystal clear. Did she make the nomination. Does any married couple make such a nomination? Married couples let's hear from you. The planet would forgive her, just, as she is an MP who makes the rules (sound familiar?) if she wasn't aware of a line in the tax code about married couples making nominations when there are two properties in the family.
Are you making a correlation between Rayner's ignorance of rules surrounding right to buy, and someone who made rules of social distancing, believing he remained within those rules when he was photographed in a confined space with many other people all wearing party hats, and with glasses of Champagne in hand?
I am making a "correlation" between politicians being given less slack for breaches of the rules they preside over.
I don't know the ins and out of Rayner's case, and far be it from me to defend her, but your allusion that the confusion is on a par with Partygate is nonsense.
You would think that...
As would anyone with a functional brain.
The two cases are chalk and cheese (and wine).
I am comfortable to give Sunak a free pass over Cakegate, he was ambushed, but Johnson innocently not knowing the rules, give me a break!.
Let's just look at partygate another way, shall we? A group of people being forced to make life-and-death decisions, often with no clear obvious answers, and having those decisions dissected in real time by both real and self-professed experts. A PM who nearly died of the disease. On a few occasions they let their hair down a little from the enormous stress in a relatively safe manner.
As did many other people with similar and far less excuse. The pressures within government at the time must have been hideous.
It was wrong, but not the massive travesty so many people paint it out to be.
And as I've said passim, currygate was worse. (And no, I don't trust the police on this - not after plebgate)
Currygate was not worse. If you don't want to trust the police, how about an experienced lawyer, perhaps even a former DPP, who was so confident that he pledged to resign if charged, knowing that he could not be.
On Partygate, even if we accept your judgement that there were mitigating pressures, what Boris should have done is draw a line under the affair by separating himself from the weekly wine o'clock boozers, apologising on their behalf, and ensuring there would be no repeats. What Boris actually did, if we are generous, and we saw a similar pattern with various other scandals that combined to bring him down, was issue a blanket denial in brazen disregard of the known facts, and repeat it under questioning by an experienced lawyer (see above) at PMQs.
If Boris had first troubled to establish the facts about the parties, and about Pincher, Paterson and so on, he might not have painted himself into a corner each time. We cannot be sure but that is a plausible basis for an alternative timeline where Boris is still Prime Minister.
Epidemiolocally, currygate was far worse. Getting people to travel from all around the country, meet lots of the public, then get together for a piss-up was a hideous idea. Especially when compared to people who mostly worked together in No. 10 and 11 getting together in the garden.
And no, I don't trust the police on these matters, given their track record. And your argument about SKS is poor - he did not *know* he could not be charged - unless you're claiming he knew what the police would say? There was far more risk of virus spread from currygate than the no.10 party.
Yes, Johnson was a victim of his own character flaws - I've gone on enough about that. I have zero compassion for him over Pincher, Patterson etc. But on partygate... yes, I do have some sympathy, especially given his own personal ordeal months earlier.
Starmer is a lawyer. He knew the law. That's what he does for a living. He works with the rules to his advantage. It is how he sidelined Labour's left and ousted Boris Johnson. Currygate was legal under the rules at the time. Starmer knew that, which is why he could pledge to resign. He knew there was no legal basis for any charge. You substituting your own view of what the rules should have been as opposed to what they were gets us, and Boris, nowhere.
You may not have noticed, but lawyers often disagree on points of law. Indeed, it is how many of them make their money. And it is not as if lawyers never get caught out doing anything illegal...
As defences go, that's a rather poor one.
"As defences go" operating within the law as it was understood at that moment in time is a pretty good defence, I would have thought.
He did not know that, as he said afterwards. Besides, and the point you wilfully neglect - it was a terrible idea from a virus-spreading POV.
In April 2021 I was perfectly entitled to consume a Tesco Meal Deal alongside my colleagues in the office. A year earlier I was not.
Whether he was right or wrong, it’s always good to see his defenders, whether knowingly or not, omit the beering. Makes it seem far less party-ish
The beer doesn't matter. There was nothing to say he was not entitled to consume a beer with his meal in the rules, although he would be unwise to drive afterwards.
That is a complete red herring.
Wasn't it the coffees that did for those two women on Primrose Hill?
I'm amused anyway by references to things happening or not happening on 'Trump's watch' as if he was assiduously tracking and evaluating geopolitical events. Such a sweet notion.
And yet he was right about German reliance on Russian gas via Nordstream, despite the laughing mockery of the Germans, and he was right about the Chinese lab leak, despite the entire establishment claming, for a year, that this was a racist conspiracy theory which must not even be MENTIONED
Trump has been right about a number of things. Also, stupidly wrong about many others
Again, this site abandons all nuance and objectivity when it comes to Trump. He is an evil mad weirdo with an IQ of 3 and everything he does, says, or thinks is childishly foolish, but at the same time he is a terrible menace to democracy and he must be brought down by all means possible
Really pathetic to see people on here prostrating themselves over Trump under the claim of "balance". Trump has been nothing but a cuck to Putin. While it's true that Trump is all about Trump, that means he would gladly sacrifice American interest for his benefit. That is why he tried to blackmail Zelensky with aid for his own campaign back in the day. It is why he stole top secret documents and hid them in Mar-a-Lago. It is why he showed the nuclear football to half his guests.
The reason he is bending over for Putin isn't entirely clear, but likely some combination of bribery or blackmail.
I agree except the last bit. I think it's just the fandom of a wannabe strongman dictator for the real thing.
I note the strong negative number for Farage. Those cheerleaders for Reform/Tory cross over might want to mull over how popular the presiding forces of REFCON are... on both sides of that equation. I think the protest vote for Ref might fade in an unexpected direction come the GE.
Post May could see some interesting swerves. I note yet more local gains for the Lib Dems.
Re the England shirt flag-gate… I see Sir Keir & Lady Nugee have weighed in, am saying it’s a disgrace. Nigel Farage has too; what are Nike trying to promote by having the horizontal part of the cross purple & blue? What are those colours representative of that is inspiring? I’m not that bothered either way, but I don’t get what changing to those colours is meant to mean.
Labour have an election to win, and the red cross of St George is, in our mythology, an important part of the proper uniform of Crusaders in ye olden days. I doubt if either the red wallers or footie fans (quite a few are both) will warm to turning our symbols of the conquest of Jerusalem into something for a rainbow alliance to adopt.
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
But what is the cause that changing the colour of the flag seeks to promote? I don’t see what Nike are trying to champion
The cause of getting us to talk about Nike? As with Trump, any publicity is good publicity. If we're buying trainers in 6 months, we won't remember the details of the controversy, but we'll vaguely recall Nike being in the news, giving them an edge over a rival brand.
Perhaps.
Possibly. I buy Nike trainers generally, and them being woke probably won’t put me off. It really annoys me that my bank bangs on about Pride etc but I don’t change bank accounts. The only anti woke thing I ever did in terms of purchasing was to not buy some cat food that had the pride rainbow on it. I just can’t see why commercial entities try to force political opinions on us
You just answered your own question. They are commercial entities and are trying to make money by accommodating the latest trends.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
It’s going to be a mahoohoohoohoohoosive irony if Biden turns out even weaker on Ukraine than Trump, coz Biden is scared of nukes, and inflation
Trump would definitely have been worse, because Trump is essentially a massive coward who wants Putin to be his friend.
In the light of this FT article I’m really not sure of that. Also it is arguable Putin was emboldened by Biden’s urgent and calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin saw a very old man who hates war and isn’t ashamed of retreating
Trump is inherently unpredictable. I’m not sure Putin would have risked this war with Trump in the White House. Sure, Trump might have said “fuck it, Vlad, take the whole country. Stay at my house in Florida afterwards”
Or the volatile Trump might have seen it as an insult to his ego and dropped a nuke on St Petersburg
So maybe Putin would have paused
Biden is a fucking catastrophe as a foreign policy president
I wonder why Putin wanted (and wants) Trump in the White House then. He must be a bit confused or something. Maybe he's getting Trump and Biden mixed up?
Do we know Putin really wants Trump in the WH? If he does, why doesn’t he lend Trump a couple of billion?
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
We do know, yes. In fact most of the shittiest people in the world want Trump in the White House. It's pretty much a litmus test of shittiness.
I honestly dunno. It seems to me to be one of those received opinions which we have all long accepted (me included), but on analysis I cannot think of immediate evidence
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Russian efforts to help him electorally are proven fact, aren't they?
10% of people wasting their vote on the Liberal who cannot win. Does Joe Public realise this is now FPP?
I had a leaflet through the door from him yesterday, essentially the theme repeated ad nauseum was that he would back the building of more houses and apartments, regardless of which social strata they're aimed for. He has my vote for that alone. Far better than Hall's BANANAism and Khan's lets screw the middle classes by only building council houses approaches.
Comments
There’s not a fag paper between his Durham beers and what Boris was fined for, not that either amounted to a hill of beans
(found on linkedin)
If Trump wins and forces everyone in NATO to instantly raise defence spending then that’s bad for Putin
That’s just a shit foreign policy record. It’s as simple as that. Biden has done well on the economy but on foreign policy he’s been disastrous
Trump should use it as a classic campaign one liner. “Do you feel safer than you did four years ago?”
Pretty sure most Americans would say No
Desperate stuff
* Besides, Trump is loonier than he was, and I doubt either Xi or Putin want him back in office.
* Meanwhile in Britain, both of Sunak's last two predecessors as prime minister have both backed Trump for this year's USPE.
* Biden on foreign policy? Well he must have jinxed Varadkar. And how's the snazzy only-takes-a-week floating superport for Gaza going?
That is a complete red herring.
I've often criticised his timidity on Ukraine. But it's 100% better than the current GOP policy which is effective surrender.
There is a bill in Congress to resume arms supplies to Ukraine, which will get the presidential signature as soon as it's passed.
The Senate has voted it through. Trump opposes it, and as a result, it can't pass the House.
You can argue as much as you like about peripheral details, but those are the facts.
Blue = Tories?
* women
* divorced
* heavily maritime-focused
* lovers of cats
* individuals who like to bring their cats to the office
https://burmesecatclub.com/officers-committee/ (See who the patron is)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/10/14/marine-le-pen-passes-professional-cat-breeding-diploma-insists/
For full effect, they should have their first meeting aboard a ship and bring their cats. They of course, being women, are Jonahs. But cats bring good luck. And thus the tension rises.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailors'_superstitions
do
His defenders don’t say “I was at work at the time and regularly had a glass of wine/dram of whiskey with colleagues”, they say “ate a sandwich” or “had a ready meal”
But, I agree with you on the flag. Stupid idea. It’s sensible that the England shirt bears the English flag.
What the US is not cool with any more is a proper attempt to sever the landbridge or anything “escalatory” on Russian soil.
The gamble is that the Ukrainian line fails to hold or that Putin isn’t emboldened to broaden his conflict (Kosovo, Moldova or even the Baltics).
Feels like people in Washington/Langley who are not as smart as they think they are playing games
But in the end what will count is,of course, money. Have Nike just trashed their trillions value brand of useless badly made plimsolls and nylon non-breathing shirts?
We can but hope.
BTW Emily T breathing fire about this on the media today is comedy gold.
The Police investigated SKS, twice. TWICE! The second under pressure from the government which in of itself is very troubling and should make anyone who values democracy very worried.
Johnson set the rules. He said there were no parties. He lied. Then he was pictured at the parties. He said all rules were followed. He lied again. Then he said the parties happened and he was sorry for breaking the rules. The Police disagreed.
This is why SKS is currently 27 points ahead, having run rings around the so-called "politics experts" ever since he was elected.
You underestimate his skill at your peril. And your continuing to do so means he's possible to now win the largest Labour majority ever.
The Biden administration could also have done more to send aid to Ukraine, especially before the midterm elections.
Against that, it is undoubtedly true that it has been the Republicans who have been most obstructive on Ukraine aid since the midterms. They have repeatedly dangled the possibility of aid, only to pull the rug out. And this obstruction has been explicitly backed by Trump.
Personally, I think a much bigger problem is in Europe, where governments did not ramp up defense procurement fast enough following the invasion. This has meant that there are nowhere near enough consumables available to ship to Ukraine. That's now changing, but it will take until the end of this year before you start to see significant quantities of ammunition, etc being produced.
All is not over for Ukraine, mind. Russian advances are grindingly slow, their supply lines are lengthening, and they will be losing more troops and equipment every day.
That Hamas would have embraced peace because Trump was in the White House ?
That Putin wouldn't have invaded ?
Trump is, by his own account, and isolationist - as are the MAGA Republicans.
Biden has at least kept NATO together, and shepherded through approval of its newest members. I'd be astonished had Trump done the same.
Blue = Tories?
I dunno!
Which has only one possible meaning in practice - throw Ukraine under the bus.
See the BA attempt to rebrand under Thatcher. Which collapsed when Virgin said that if BA didn’t want the Union Jack, they did.
Some years ago, knew someone at the Wallace Collection. She was rather amused by the fury of the other academics there - they aren’t allowed to change the collection, under the rules of the bequest. So no “interpretations”, “re-imaginings” etc. they actually spent a fair bit of money trying to break the rules of the bequest.
She got treated rather aggressively when she pointed out that new spaces had been added, not in the original house - they could do new stuff there.
Looks very C of E-ish to my eyes, if anything. Archbish gear and all that.
Perhaps.
Kremlin spokesperson Peskov has referred to Russia's aggression in Ukraine as a "state of war" for the first time, diverging from the term "special military operation," according to AFP.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1771175168808788037
The point about a national team football shirt is that it’s part of representing the nation so is clearly one place where national symbols are appropriate and shouldn’t be messed with.
One thing it’s not however is “woke” as it’s not any sort of symbol for any movement and so attacking it on that reasoning is a bit silly.
Unfortunately the BBC had Peter Shilton on trying to be the anti-change spokesman this morning and it wouldn’t have taken Maradonna to tie him in knots. Was a bit mean or a bit sneaky using him as one side of the debate.
It's also a homage to the bisexual flag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexual_flag
Perhaps I was looking at a different thread or AI has a powerful language algorithm which projects on to the screen the words I subconsciously want to see but the thread I read suggested a brutal, attritional confluct more or less static - almost as though WW1 were being fought in a semi-urban environment.
I'm sure it's a thousand times worse on the ground let alone for any civilians unable to unwilling to escape.
Two years and a month on and the stalemate continues and to be honest that works fine for almost everyone - not for the Ukrainians of course and arguably not for some Russians but for the rest of us, it's contained, it's brutal but it can sit in the background.
If you can provide it, then great, I am happy to believe it. But it needs to be evidence not conjecture
Ken Buck becomes first Republican to sign Democrats’ discharge petition for Ukraine aid
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4548713-ken-buck-becomes-first-republican-to-sign-democrats-discharge-petition-for-ukraine-aid/
The reason he is bending over for Putin isn't entirely clear, but likely some combination of bribery or blackmail.
That makes it Italian, because Episcopal Purple is derived from the Roman Senate, and the Emperors.
Lab 43, Con 22, Ref 13, LD 10, Green 6
So 59-35 on the scale of "glorious thoughtful wonderful progressives" vs "unconscionable baby eating reactionaries".
I realise that last bit may be slightly on the wrong side of wholly objective and impartial commentary....
In the end you judge a president by his record. Biden's team is asking Americans to do that, to ignore everything else. They phrase it thus: do you feel richer than you did four years ago? Are there more jobs, is the stock market higher, did America grow under Biden faster than her peers? And the answers are good: yes yes yes
But apply the same basic metric to Biden as a foreign policy president and its a much more negative picture. Does the world feel safer than four years ago? No, it does not, Have there been more wars under Biden than under Trump? Yes, horrifically so
So he's a good president for the economy and a shit president for foreign policy. That is the objective truth. All the Trump-hatred in the world does not make this untrue
🚨NEW London Mayoral Voting Intention for
@centreforlondon
📈24pt Sadiq Khan lead
🌹Lab 51 (+11)
🌳Con 27 (-8)
🔶LD 10 (+6)
🌍Green 8 (=)
➡️Reform 2 (NEW)
⬜️Other 3 (-10)
1,510 Londoners, 8-12 March
(chg vs 2021 result (1st prefs))
This is the Trump who got so bored in his daily confidential briefings that they stopped trying to give them to him.
And the colour juxtapositions are not constant.
It looks to my eyes, instead, a sort of 3-D style design with the light changing the colour according to the portrayed angle. Basically just red and blue.
Killer quote from one participant in @LordAshcroft's Thanet and Portsmouth focus groups
The only case I have any certainty over is Ukraine - Putin would not have gone in, under Trump. And again - as I say - I can't prove this, it is a hunch, like any counterfactuals: like your counterfactuals
Putin knew that Biden would wag his finger, impose sanctions, and send some military aid to Ukraine. Trump being less predictable made it harder for Putin to take risks.
Trump has been right about a number of things. Also, stupidly wrong about many others
Again, this site abandons all nuance and objectivity when it comes to Trump. He is an evil mad weirdo with an IQ of 3 and everything he does, says, or thinks is childishly foolish, but at the same time he is a terrible menace to democracy and he must be brought down by all means possible
It's a pathology
Post May could see some interesting swerves. I note yet more local gains for the Lib Dems.
As for the purple England shirt-gate. Isn't that acknowledging the 1966 England strip. Like when the Arse played in their (rather fetching) 2005-6 strip marking their final season at Highbury.
Not only would she retain her seat with change, she'd land a cabinet post in the new Labour government somewhat better than 'Leader of the House'.