We need to see the poster of Farage in Putin’s pocket.
You have to remember that there are a significant number of Brits, like @Luckyguy1983, who are sympathetic towards Putin, just as there were a significant number in 1938 who liked Hitler.
So true
Less well known: many in the British trade union movement, and especially the Communists, were anti-war in 1939, 1940 and half of 1941. Until Barbarossa started, that is. Something the trade union movement are keen to forget.
It is not just the right who appeased evil before (and during) WW2.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
If Farage fails to get elected AGAIN, I will both LOL and LMAO.
I hope and expect he comes third.
I'll be quite disappointed in the voters of Clacton if he doesn't.
Oh I think the ideal result is for Reform to win Clacton but no other seats - which would mean Farage has to sit in Parliament with a single question in PMQs once a year if he’s lucky.
He would quickly become irrelevant
I’m sure they’d find a place for the **** on QT every couple of months.
If Farage fails to get elected AGAIN, I will both LOL and LMAO.
I hope and expect he comes third.
I'll be quite disappointed in the voters of Clacton if he doesn't.
Oh I think the ideal result is for Reform to win Clacton but no other seats - which would mean Farage has to sit in Parliament with a single question in PMQs once a year if he’s lucky.
He would quickly become irrelevant
I don't know, I think seven eight times loser Nigel Farage has a rather good ring to it.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
We bought a lot of aircraft from them. 350 a month by the end of 1940. Mostly medium bombers and some fighters, all solid modern types like the Boston and the Wildcat. Even the ones they sold prewar to France were quite solid. The P-36 was comparable to the Hurricane. The Buffalo wasn't bad when used in Northern Climates in the early war (rather than trying to use untropicalised aircraft in Singapore).
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
Re this Farage thing. 95% of the posts are people coming to the conclusion they want to reach - Farage is a Putinist shill, Reform UK are finished etc.
But actually this is just seems to me like another outing of 'don't poke the bear' - a view that it is condemned and impossible to express but one which many people still hold. Like lots of other reform UK policies. The outrage that is generated just gives Reform UK free publicity.
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
First official meeting of the PB WW2 nerd squad.
Been plenty of unofficial meetings ...
I think it becomes official when the performance of inter-war American pursuit aircraft are being compared.
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
Good point. A lot of the party structures assume there’s a number of MPs.
My own worries will be rather more immediate though, like explaining to my wife why I’m going to London with a pile of money because I lost a silly bet! At least one Ukranian lady gained some money in her collecting tin.
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
Shows either Farage is completely ignorant of geo-politics or he is a Putin apologist.
Re this Farage thing. 95% of the posts are people coming to the conclusion they want to reach - Farage is a Putinist shill, Reform UK are finished etc.
But actually this is just seems to me like another outing of 'don't poke the bear' - a view that it is condemned and impossible to express but one which many people still hold. Like lots of other reform UK policies. The outrage that is generated just gives Reform UK free publicity.
Its another outing of "she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it".
That Farage is a Putinist shill isn't a conclusion people want to reach, its a fact that is undeniable and Farage has shown his true colours once more.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Other parties releasing a joint statement would play into his hands. He would say the Establishment was seeking to silence him and, by extension, the People. Witch-hunt, grievance, Populism 101.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
USA had no army or Air Force to speak of in 1939. There would have been no meaningful contribution to save Francevin 1940. That US troops were able to take part in Torch in Nov 1942, less than a year after entering the war is nothing short of astonishing. That the Germans failed to conceive of such industrial might is a big reason why they lost the war.
Already beginning to export large numbers of aircraft to France in spring 1940, then diverted to the UK which was already taking plenty.
The actual numbers were small. The aircraft were outdated.
Not at that time. Hawk, Boston, Maryland comparable to many UK and French aircraft. And they developed new ones for the UK/French market to some extent.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
If it does get that bad, it hardly matters. Their most significant elected figure would be... leader of somewhere like Hampshire County Council? (Other large shire counties are available.)
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
Shows either Farage is completely ignorant of geo-politics or he is a Putin apologist.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Other parties releasing a joint statement would play into his hands. He would say the Establishment was seeking to silence him and, by extension, the People. Witch-hunt, grievance, Populism 101.
The overwhelming majority of the country support Ukraine so I don’t think this plays into his hands .
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
No, there is absolutely no nuance whatsoever to the morality.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I'm surprised he didn't say it was due to Ukraine supporting Biden's plans for electric boats.
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
If it does get that bad, it hardly matters. Their most significant elected figure would be... leader of somewhere like Hampshire County Council? (Other large shire counties are available.)
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
No, there is absolutely no nuance whatsoever to the morality.
Putin is evil.
His invasion of Ukraine is evil.
Ukraine are right to defend themselves.
We are right to support Ukraine.
There is no grey here.
That shows that there's no nuance in your brain, not in the situation. We knew that already.
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
They are about as disgraceful as it comes when it comes to commenting on foreign policy IMO, because he's saying that countries not obeying their more powerful neighbours should expect to be invaded. That's a remarkable statement from a leader of a mainstream (sort of) political party
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
That a pretty poor analysis given there was no ‘them’. The US was split on whether or not to remain isolationist, and absent Pearl Harbour would likely have remained so.
Economically, they’d likely have been fine if they’d entered the conflict at the beginning. Or a year later.
No one ‘profited’ from WWII. The most engaged combatants just lost more, because war costs.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
No, there is absolutely no nuance whatsoever to the morality.
Putin is evil.
His invasion of Ukraine is evil.
Ukraine are right to defend themselves.
We are right to support Ukraine.
There is no grey here.
That shows that there's no nuance in your brain, not in the situation. We knew that already.
No, if you think there is a nuance to the morality of whether it is acceptable for Russia to invade Ukraine, then it shows you are lacking in moral fibre.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Other parties releasing a joint statement would play into his hands. He would say the Establishment was seeking to silence him and, by extension, the People. Witch-hunt, grievance, Populism 101.
The overwhelming majority of the country support Ukraine so I don’t think this plays into his hands .
Farage has spent way too much time in the States, and is regurgitating a load of American talking points from the far right, far left, and libertarians, that this isn’t America’s war.
Totally failing to realise that this argument goes down like a cup of cold sick in the UK and Europe, where the threat of the angry bear is existential, and millions of people have been displaced as a result of this war.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Other parties releasing a joint statement would play into his hands. He would say the Establishment was seeking to silence him and, by extension, the People. Witch-hunt, grievance, Populism 101.
The overwhelming majority of the country support Ukraine so I don’t think this plays into his hands .
Farage doesn't need to mention Ukraine. He says the Establishment are vicious liars trying to silence him over stuff he never said and never did. You're really not getting how populism works.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
No, there is absolutely no nuance whatsoever to the morality.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
That a pretty poor analysis given there was no ‘them’. The US was split on whether or not to remain isolationist, and absent Pearl Harbour would likely have remained so.
Economically, they’d likely have been fine if they’d entered the conflict at the beginning. Or a year later.
No one ‘profited’ from WWII. The most engaged combatants just lost more, because war costs.
I think discussing states as units is a fairly well-established mode of discussion actually, regardless of internal political disagreements. It certainly was when I studied modern history.
Farage's comments don't seem that disgraceful. I just think they are wrong. Putin doesn't need excuses. And the idea he would have left Ukraine alone had they abandoned EU aspirations seems fanciful.
‘I admire him as a politician”, of someone who has his political opponents imprisoned or murdered, is disgraceful.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
Yeah exactly - good insight. There are also some attractive policies on keeping petrol cars going and preventing councils from introducing traffic free streets which will appeal to the 'net zero immigration' voting base. The attempts to spin that he is pro Putin are unlikely to succeed, this is all stuff he has said before.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
Other parties releasing a joint statement would play into his hands. He would say the Establishment was seeking to silence him and, by extension, the People. Witch-hunt, grievance, Populism 101.
The overwhelming majority of the country support Ukraine so I don’t think this plays into his hands .
Farage has spent way too much time in the States, and is regurgitating a load of American talking points from the far right, far left, and libertarians, that this isn’t America’s war.
Totally failing to realise that this argument goes down like a cup of cold sick in the UK and Europe, where the threat of the angry bear is existential, and millions of people have been displaced as a result of this war.
Ironically maybe he is paying the price for not being in the European parliament anymore and failing to pick up on trends among the European right led by Meloni.
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I'm surprised he didn't say it was due to Ukraine supporting Biden's plans for electric boats.
His boat story was a deeply profound allegorical parable, with the boat symbolising America under Biden and himself as the shark. Stay in the boat or get eaten?
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
If it does get that bad, it hardly matters. Their most significant elected figure would be... leader of somewhere like Hampshire County Council? (Other large shire counties are available.)
Ben Houchen, I suggest.
He's got the personal mandate, sure. Quite a small patch, though- Tees Valley is about 675k people. Hampshire minus Portsmouth and Southampton is 1.4 million.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
No, there is absolutely no nuance whatsoever to the morality.
Putin is evil.
His invasion of Ukraine is evil.
Ukraine are right to defend themselves.
We are right to support Ukraine.
There is no grey here.
That shows that there's no nuance in your brain, not in the situation. We knew that already.
No, if you think there is a nuance to the morality of whether it is acceptable for Russia to invade Ukraine, then it shows you are lacking in moral fibre.
We knew that already.
I don't think that. I've condemned the invasion. But the decision on the extent to which we can and should get involved in it is full of nuance. To adopt your blank cheque approach would not be a position of morality for a UK Prime Minister, whose primary responsibility is to safeguard the wellbeing of the people of this country - helping others where possible afterwards.
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I'm surprised he didn't say it was due to Ukraine supporting Biden's plans for electric boats.
His boat story was a deeply profound allegorical parable, with the boat symbolising America under Biden and himself as the shark. Stay in the boat or get eaten?
Re this Farage thing. 95% of the posts are people coming to the conclusion they want to reach - Farage is a Putinist shill, Reform UK are finished etc.
But actually this is just seems to me like another outing of 'don't poke the bear' - a view that it is condemned and impossible to express but one which many people still hold. Like lots of other reform UK policies. The outrage that is generated just gives Reform UK free publicity.
Its another outing of "she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it".
That Farage is a Putinist shill isn't a conclusion people want to reach, its a fact that is undeniable and Farage has shown his true colours once more.
"She provoked me" is the defence of every domestic violence abuser too. It's absolutely vile.
What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....
One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
Thought he got off rather easy on the £20k personal allowance. He managed to answer the question about how Reform could find so much money to spend by describing one of the main ways that they would spend that money.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
Yeah exactly - good insight. There are also some attractive policies on keeping petrol cars going and preventing councils from introducing traffic free streets which will appeal to the 'net zero immigration' voting base. The attempts to spin that he is pro Putin are unlikely to succeed, this is all stuff he has said before.
I would never vote for him
The reaction on here however is exactly why he will do better than ever.
Those who are sick to death with their lot in life are looking for real change not the continuation policies on offer elsewhere.
Re this Farage thing. 95% of the posts are people coming to the conclusion they want to reach - Farage is a Putinist shill, Reform UK are finished etc.
But actually this is just seems to me like another outing of 'don't poke the bear' - a view that it is condemned and impossible to express but one which many people still hold. Like lots of other reform UK policies. The outrage that is generated just gives Reform UK free publicity.
Its another outing of "she was wearing a short skirt, she was asking for it".
That Farage is a Putinist shill isn't a conclusion people want to reach, its a fact that is undeniable and Farage has shown his true colours once more.
"She provoked me" is the defence of every domestic violence abuser too. It's absolutely vile.
To adopt your blank cheque approach would not be a position of morality for a UK Prime Minister, whose primary responsibility is to safeguard the wellbeing of the people of this country - helping others where possible afterwards.
I think @Mexicanpete is right. The seeds of this started with Johnson’s 2019 purge.
The decent tories have been silenced or driven out. This country will need them back. They must not let 'the lunatics take over the asylum.'
That's the Tory problem. They need a Cameron but they are going to get a Braverman.
Cameron’s not about to lose his seat!
Not going to happen, but if you did lose your bet with Leon I wonder what on earth the party would do about its leadership.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
If it does get that bad, it hardly matters. Their most significant elected figure would be... leader of somewhere like Hampshire County Council? (Other large shire counties are available.)
Ben Houchen, I suggest.
At the risk of giving @TSE a hard on, Lord Cameron.
To adopt your blank cheque approach would not be a position of morality for a UK Prime Minister, whose primary responsibility is to safeguard the wellbeing of the people of this country - helping others where possible afterwards.
I think Churchill would disagree with you there.
I don't think he would have done so publicly. It was a far more patriotic age.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
That a pretty poor analysis given there was no ‘them’. The US was split on whether or not to remain isolationist, and absent Pearl Harbour would likely have remained so.
Economically, they’d likely have been fine if they’d entered the conflict at the beginning. Or a year later.
No one ‘profited’ from WWII. The most engaged combatants just lost more, because war costs.
I think discussing states as units is a fairly well-established mode of discussion actually, regardless of internal political disagreements. It certainly was when I studied modern history.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
Thought he got off rather easy on the £20k personal allowance. He managed to answer the question about how Reform could find so much money to spend by describing one of the main ways that they would spend that money.
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
I'm surprised he didn't say it was due to Ukraine supporting Biden's plans for electric boats.
His boat story was a deeply profound allegorical parable, with the boat symbolising America under Biden and himself as the shark. Stay in the boat or get eaten?
What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....
One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The (hopefully less than 10% but probably nearer 20%) who vote Reform are thick fuckers who don’t care about Ukraine, or even know where it is.
2 great teams tonight. It's been a tactical tour de force, particularly the defending at both ends.
I have long been a Netherlands fan. My first World Cup was 1974. The Dutch are the best team to have never won.
My missus is of Dutch extraction ("I'm 1/4 Dutch so every four years I support the football team") so was not especially happy about that goal being disallowed.
JK Rowling has accused Sir Keir Starmer of 'abandoning women' who are concerned about transgender rights
In an article for The Times the author criticised the Labour leader for taking a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to feminist concerns
She said she can no longer vote for the party that she was once a member of because she does not trust Starmer’s judgement and has a 'poor opinion' of his character
Comments
It is not just the right who appeased evil before (and during) WW2.
Edit: the P-51 Mustang (using US-produced Merlin engines) was a good example of the latter.
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
Lincolnshire is in the East Midlands.
This looks like it - 2 hours on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjXbBvvq2lc
But actually this is just seems to me like another outing of 'don't poke the bear' - a view that it is condemned and impossible to express but one which many people still hold. Like lots of other reform UK policies. The outrage that is generated just gives Reform UK free publicity.
I believe the constitution requires the leader to be an MP now, but if there are none what can they do? And if there are none, there's no 1922 Committee. Who runs the Party, who runs the election, who gets to run in it, who gets to nominate the candidates?
Be rather . . . interesting.
At this point all the other parties should release a joint statement to condemn him . I’m happy to see that although we might bicker in here about our politics the overwhelming majority of members are on the right side of history .
"My Russia, right or wrong."
If you want the economic policies of Liz Truss and the pro-Putin policies of Jeremy Corbyn, vote Reform.
My own worries will be rather more immediate though, like explaining to my wife why I’m going to London with a pile of money because I lost a silly bet! At least one Ukranian lady gained some money in her collecting tin.
That Farage is a Putinist shill isn't a conclusion people want to reach, its a fact that is undeniable and Farage has shown his true colours once more.
At last. A Tory fighting back.
People should be under no illusions that he will use a strong showing for Reform as a sign of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWIyVRNAxCg
On principle I’m having nothing to do with them - which is also probably not a bad decision pragmatically.
The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
⚡️Former U.S. President Donald Trump said on June 20 that the possibility of Ukraine's entry into NATO was "really why this (full-scale) war started" and blamed President Joe Biden's alleged support for Ukraine's accession as a trigger to the invasion.
Putin is evil.
His invasion of Ukraine is evil.
Ukraine are right to defend themselves.
We are right to support Ukraine.
There is no grey here.
I think most Reform voters wont see far beyond his immigration net zero position which is what they will be voting for.
Other soundbites re D Day disrespect and £20K tax free allowance will be very popular.
The same suspects on here who slagged Brexiteers off for being thick and then were in total disbelief with the 52/48 could be in for a 2nd massive surprise IMO.
The lack of a radical alternative to the blue Tories has led to the current Reform surge
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1804248088959504868
The US was split on whether or not to remain isolationist, and absent Pearl Harbour would likely have remained so.
Economically, they’d likely have been fine if they’d entered the conflict at the beginning. Or a year later.
No one ‘profited’ from WWII. The most engaged combatants just lost more, because war costs.
We knew that already.
Totally failing to realise that this argument goes down like a cup of cold sick in the UK and Europe, where the threat of the angry bear is existential, and millions of people have been displaced as a result of this war.
There are also some attractive policies on keeping petrol cars going and preventing councils from introducing traffic free streets which will appeal to the 'net zero immigration' voting base.
The attempts to spin that he is pro Putin are unlikely to succeed, this is all stuff he has said before.
One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
The reaction on here however is exactly why he will do better than ever.
Those who are sick to death with their lot in life are looking for real change not the continuation policies on offer elsewhere.
George Mann
@sgfmann
·
26m
Daily Star: A safe bet #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1804248266390778101
I have long been a Netherlands fan. My first World Cup was 1974. The Dutch are the best team to have never won.
About time too .
EXCLUSIVE:
JK Rowling has accused Sir Keir Starmer of 'abandoning women' who are concerned about transgender rights
In an article for The Times the author criticised the Labour leader for taking a 'dismissive and often offensive' approach to feminist concerns
She said she can no longer vote for the party that she was once a member of because she does not trust Starmer’s judgement and has a 'poor opinion' of his character
I notice it's only 10 seats in it on Electoral Calculus....
No, thought not.