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
Never realised BJO was a successful fiction author living in Edinburgh.
Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
Leon posts as Heathener (come on guys, he admits the fact frequently) and I believe has a new one called Double Dutch. He can rarely resist drawing attention to his own comic creations and I noticed him doing that today. Heathener is a satire on a censorious leftie woman and Double Dutch is a green loon. I don't know where he finds the energy.
Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
I think the keeper probably doesn't save it. But that's not enough. Don't be offside is the moral of the story.
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that child abuse?
Don't worry, there will be lots of others around to keep an eye on things. LadyG won't let anything bad happen.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
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
Perhaps the Scottish Family Party might be a good fit for JK? I had the ill luck to catch their PPB the other night.
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
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
Perhaps the Scottish Family Party might be a good fit for JK? I had the ill luck to catch their PPB the other night.
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
Never realised BJO was a successful fiction author living in Edinburgh.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
Congress weren't hugely in favour of giving the Navy any money at that time and Tillman himself kept trying to get the budgets cut. The capacity was there but trying to get the funding for it was a constant battle.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
Congress weren't hugely in favour of giving the Navy any money at that time and Tillman himself kept trying to get the budgets cut. The capacity was there but trying to get the funding for it was a constant battle.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
Any invasion plan there was would be public domain by now, as the US one has become.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.
It was a BBC interview and Farage made the comments himself, nothing to do with the Tories. The Mail and Telegraph Farage lovers in the comments will be diehard Reform voters anyway
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
He said he was taking his daughter for a picnic in the Chilterns earlier today, so I'm hoping that he's busy spending the evening with her in a comfortable pub now too.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
Several hours with Leon. Isn’t that...
You still have a few minutes to think better of that comment.
Uh? It was clearly a joke comment.
I think Leon goes too far with some of his joke comments, and I think such jokes, especially about posters children, are in poor taste.
It's the sort of joke that us amateurs should leave to the professionals.
And I decided to merely suggest that they think again, rather than have a big go at them, which I think is a reasonable balance.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
Arguably the best ships of WWI !! - along with Furious, they formed the first homogenous carrier battle group under Admiral Henderson. Who used them to invent and prove the whole basis of mass attack carrier aviation.
They served well into WWII - when most of the contemporaries were long gone.
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
Offside player was too close to the keeper so "involved in play". Think it was correct to be ruled out tbh
Having watched it again, the goalie was way off his line, and unsighted by his own defender, irrespective of what the Dutch player was doing. Harsh call.
I think the keeper probably doesn't save it. But that's not enough. Don't be offside is the moral of the story.
The keeper was never getting anywhere near it. Terrible decision.
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
Spurious, Curious and Outrageous were the nicknames for the "large light cruisers". They made good carriers though.
⚡️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.
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
They are certainly representative of a fairly large online readership. I would expect these outraged Reform-considering Tories who are now going to go back and vote Sunak because NF's Putin love in is too gamey for them to be represented if they are a big group.
Judging by the reader comments at Telegaph and Mail, this confected hoo hah is not working out as the Tories hope.
As far as I can seen the DM has ignored it.
PS Is that you MrEd?
Yep Mail ignored it - other than the "Nigel Farage faces fury as he claims the West 'provoked' Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine" hit piece
My bad - I made the mistake of going to the DM home page and then their General Election page - no reference to it there. Then I got lost in a flood of 'Doctors say to do this...' adverts.
(Of course you could have just posted the link, which is what LuckyGuy has just done - thanks LG.)
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
They are certainly representative of a fairly large online readership. I would expect these outraged Reform-considering Tories who are now going to go back and vote Sunak because NF's Putin love in is too gamey for them to be represented if they are a big group.
A lot of the DM online readership is not in the UK, and a fair bit of it is in Russia and Trumpistan.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
That the US had such capacity was known. The Tillman battleship designs were public knowledge and talked of.
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
The USA had plans to invade Britain well into the 1920s.
And the British Empire had war plans vs the US.
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
Fisher also designed the Courageous and Glorious with tin-plate armour and only 4 main guns!
Arguably the best ships of WWI !! - along with Furious, they formed the first homogenous carrier battle group under Admiral Henderson. Who used them to invent and prove the whole basis of mass attack carrier aviation.
They served well into WWII - when most of the contemporaries were long gone.
But that was after conversion from Fisher's original design!
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
Wasn’t that him being interviewed on Panorama this evening?
Leon and Farage shared the same far right pro-Russia viewpoint during the early days of the war - but one of them has at least summoned up enough sense to try to reinvent himself as a champion of the plucky Ukrainians, hoping we will forget the earlier colossal misjudgement.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
The EU can expand wherever it likes. It's a club where membership is voluntary. In fact, you have to work fucking hard to join. If a country wants in, and the EU will take them, 🤝, it's a deal. Do your neighbours not like it? Tough shit. The thing about sovereignty is that you can listen to your neighbours' advice if you want but in the end you do what you like.
Normal people get this. A lot of people who voted for Brexit got this. It's kinda weird that Nigel Fartrage doesn't get it. He can fuck off to Moscow.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
The EU can expand wherever it likes. It's a club where membership is voluntary. In fact, you have to work fucking hard to join. If a country wants in, and the EU will take them, 🤝, it's a deal. Do your neighbours not like it? Tough shit. The thing about sovereignty is that you can listen to your neighbours' advice if you want but in the end you do what you like.
Normal people get this. A lot of people who voted for Brexit got this. It's kinda weird that Nigel Fartrage doesn't get it. He can fuck off to Moscow.
Absofuckinglutely!
I believe in sovereignty. British sovereignty, Ukrainian sovereignty.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
So just to clarify, you think there’s a big groundswell among the “working men’s clubs” that you presumably frequent and which represent the majority of British public opinion, for an accommodating approach towards Putin. Whose defensive war against the marauding Ukrainians is understandable because of the gross provocation by the EU.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
That's a political bubble. Not an insignificant one, but pub bores are never going to win you a seat under FPTP.
Have been following the conversation tonight, and to be honest Farage and his Trump devoted pro Putin fans leave me cold and reaffirm my wife amd my decision that we will vote conservative in a small demonstration of how we utterly repudiate Farage and Reform and hope traditional conservatives will do the right thing and also vote for the party no matter how much they critise it
Starmer is de facto PM and nothing will change that by conservatives standing against the threat to their very existence
And I wish everyone a good night's sleep as there is plenty of football, cricket and golf to lose oneself in and switch off the hatred that is horrible
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
I've considered the possibility and, no, I don't think Nige shilling for the Kremlin will be being toasted down the Dog & Duck.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
lol, is that how you really think Farage spends his spare time. Hanging around in working men's clubs? Good grief.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
I think we have now passed peak Farage, the Panorama interview will hit Reform's voteshare a bit. Then he isn't even in the Starmer v Sunak head to head debate next week
I know the DM comments aren't a poll, but have a read:
If you believed the DM comments were representative, Farage would be heading for an even bigger landslide than Thatcher got in 1983
They are certainly representative of a fairly large online readership. I would expect these outraged Reform-considering Tories who are now going to go back and vote Sunak because NF's Putin love in is too gamey for them to be represented if they are a big group.
The most recent poll taken yesterday and today has Reform on 13% and the Tories on 22%, I would expect most of those commenting in the DM comments section to be in that 13%
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
I think that probably Farage spends more time chatting to and gauging the mood of the left behind voters in pubs, working men's clubs and provincial high streets even than you Tim. We should at least consider the possibility.
Left-behind voters in British pubs are not saying “The war in Ukraine was caused by NATO expansionism”.
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.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
I would trace the moment Corbyn lost the British electorate back to his equivocation over the Salisbury poisonings.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
Does it make you miss Boris as the populist standard bearer?
Comments
The response, after WWI, to the plans by the Japanese’s and British to modernise their fleets was to lay down twice as many ships. As both of them combined. Plus some.
Yet there was a curiously denial. If the Japaneses had made the entire US Navy vanish in 1941, by 1944 they would still have been outnumbered by more than 3-1. In everything.
Not every PB.com poster has the dedication of you or me.
I had the ill luck to catch their PPB the other night.
https://youtu.be/z92f8zKZcDs?si=HMYHzyU86lNMaDfD
PS Is that you MrEd?
Fisher wanted to renew the alliance with the Japanese….
What the actual fuck???!!!
NATO was a secondary consideration/excuse.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13555165/Nigel-Farage-Ukraine-war-Reform-BBC-NATO-EU-provoked-Vladimir-Putin-invasion.html#comments-13555165
It's the sort of joke that us amateurs should leave to the professionals.
And I decided to merely suggest that they think again, rather than have a big go at them, which I think is a reasonable balance.
They served well into WWII - when most of the contemporaries were long gone.
To Mr Baldrick.
(Of course you could have just posted the link, which is what LuckyGuy has just done - thanks LG.)
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
He’s not even an elected representative of a portion of the UK.
Utter pillock.
The UK really is exceptional in not needing the security blanket of being in the EU. Other nations, their mileage varies.
Others may minimise it, but I think Farage misjudges Britain having spent too much time with Trump and his MAGA band. Isolationism is a long established American tradition. It’s not a British one.
It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
And it’s less than the square root of fuck all to do with Putin, as Farage is still arguing. He’s a shill for a mass murdering dictator.
Because when you're expaining, your're doing really well.
Farage may well pull this off, but he knows he's screwed up here.
Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
"Claire was wrong to wear revealing clothes in public, and Steve was wrong to rape and murder her."
What a twat.
(With apologies to all Steves).
Normal people get this. A lot of people who voted for Brexit got this. It's kinda weird that Nigel Fartrage doesn't get it. He can fuck off to Moscow.
If they did that because of intimidation from Russia/USSR, that would not.
Another fine reason to vote Labour, then.
I believe in sovereignty. British sovereignty, Ukrainian sovereignty.
Nigel Farage is Putinist scum who does not.
Right? That’s the real voice of the people?
Maybe I don’t understand my country after all.
Starmer is de facto PM and nothing will change that by conservatives standing against the threat to their very existence
And I wish everyone a good night's sleep as there is plenty of football, cricket and golf to lose oneself in and switch off the hatred that is horrible
Rejoin: 50% (+1)
Stay out: 31% (-2)
via @wethinkpolling, 20-21 Jun
(Changes with 13 Jun)
EU Membership Voting Intention:
*UK must adopt Euro*
Rejoin: 39% (+2)
Stay out: 40% (-3)
via @wethinkpolling, 20-21 Jun
(Changes with 13 Jun)
Even round here they are shut or on their arse.