It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
'Toppling Saddam' in isolation would certainly have been right, but the problem is that it was impossible to do that in isolation.
Was toppling Saddam worth the coalition lives lost, the Iraqi civilians' lives, the dismantling of the country, the civil war that followed, the empowerment of Iran, the rise of IS and the suffering they've inflicted on the world?
No, I'm sorry but no rational calculation can make the fall of Saddam worth even a fraction of those terrible consequences - many of which could have been and were predicted.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
Mr. xP, the blunder was a pro-EU political class dragging us to ever closer integration, giving away permanently powers that were entrusted to them on a temporary basis, then promising a referendum, and reneging upon it.
At any stage, over more than four decades, the governments could've consulted the electorate. And they didn't. And when circumstance forced the hand of the political class they conducted the worst campaign imaginable*, managing to lose when they should've won at a canter.
I'm less than delighted with the way things are going. May then Johnson have been rampantly incompetent. But the fact the EU offered us a Canadian deal up until the point we wanted it and then reneged speaks volumes about the level of trust we should have in that organisation.
*Ok, second-worst. It wasn't fronted by Theresa May.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
No it wasn't. Saddam was a bad guy,, but Bush and Blair denied regime change was the aim, merely a by product of removing his non-existant WMDs. That by your admission was a lie. That Saddam was falsely implicated in 9/11 was a cynical justification too.
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
You're all right with HIGNFY. Jeremy Clarkson (I'm sure it was him) wrote a piece saying he was amazed just how unprepared and unscripted it all was.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
'Toppling Saddam' in isolation would certainly have been right, but the problem is that it was impossible to do that in isolation.
Was toppling Saddam worth the coalition lives lost, the Iraqi civilians' lives, the dismantling of the country, the civil war that followed, the empowerment of Iran, the rise of IS and the suffering they've inflicted on the world?
No, I'm sorry but no rational calculation can make the fall of Saddam worth even a fraction of those terrible consequences - many of which could have been and were predicted.
It certainly should have been better managed, but I supported it at the time and nothing has changed my mind. I'm not going to score partisan points against Blair for something that was I thought and still think was the right thing to do given the information we had at the time.
The one (and probably only) time I felt a bit sorry for Nicola Sturgeon was when she was unfairly pilloried for punching the air etc when Jo Swinson lost her seat. Seen as unbefitting a First Minister. To be fair she was celebrating Amy's unexpected win knowing, as she did, her medical history.
Mr. xP, the blunder was a pro-EU political class dragging us to ever closer integration, giving away permanently powers that were entrusted to them on a temporary basis, then promising a referendum, and reneging upon it.
At any stage, over more than four decades, the governments could've consulted the electorate. And they didn't. And when circumstance forced the hand of the political class they conducted the worst campaign imaginable*, managing to lose when they should've won at a canter.
I'm less than delighted with the way things are going. May then Johnson have been rampantly incompetent. But the fact the EU offered us a Canadian deal up until the point we wanted it and then reneged speaks volumes about the level of trust we should have in that organisation.
*Ok, second-worst. It wasn't fronted by Theresa May.
Even if I agreed with you that the electorate were somehow disenfranchised by our EU membership, "Let's all eat chlorinated chicken to own the libs" is not a good response.
Brexit was, is and will forever remain a really, really, really bad idea.
That says Trump is an evil bigot, whilst Biden is a saint.
It might speak to those who already think that way, but what about the undecided?
If I were already a reluctant Trump supporter, how would that peel me away?
Is it about peeling away Trump supporters or encouraging GOTV and campaigning at this stage?
Fair point, it's a good GOTV ad.
It's not an ad designed to target floating voters/ undecided, I think.
You need to be a bit more subtle and say Biden can give you what Trump can't for that.
To me these adverts seem more focused on suppression of the vote than GOTV. They are designed to make moderate and sane Republicans think whether they can really vote for Trump. Its a legitimate question and one of the considerations is what is the other side offering (cf Corbyn here). If its a "nice" unthreatening man that senior Republicans quite like the incentive to get out and vote for Trump is reduced.
Trouble is that too many of these arguments revolve around, “yeah, but Trump is a c**t, isn’t he?”
Yes, he is a c**t. But if you want to really peel moderate and sane republicans away from him then you need someone moderate and sane taking their concerns on economic and social dislocation seriously.
Otherwise, you risk them hearing that you think they’re a c**t because they’re voting for a c**t - in which case they’ll say: “f**k you, *you’re* the c**t; I’m still voting for my c**t.“
Biden fits the bill well enough, everyone knows he's not instinctively not particularly on the left. I think he'll be the most centreish Dem candidate for a long time actually. He's someone enough rural appalachians can vote for for the Dems to win PA.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
No it wasn't. Saddam was a bad guy,, but Bush and Blair denied regime change was the aim, merely a by product of removing his non-existant WMDs. That by your admission was a lie. That Saddam was falsely implicated in 9/11 was a cynical justification too.
I'm pretty sure both Bush and Blair (Bush especially) had regime change as an explicit aim.
Anyway, I am not a fan of either Bush or Blair. The right thing backed by the wrong people is still the right thing. The wrong thing backed by the right people is still wrong. Toppling Saddam was the right thing to do.
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
That’s a very round-the-houses backhanded way of admitting that I was right
The "Boris" persona has worked extremely well for Johnson. No question about it: He’s ridden it right into the Prime Ministership after all.
Personally, I don’t think it’s worked out all that well for the rest of us, but that’s politics for you.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
At a time when the consensus is that footballers are overpaid, spoilt prima donnas with the morality of alley cats Rashford is rather refreshing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53042684
A man who has certainly not forgotten where he came from.
Indeed so. And I'm sure the same goes for many others. My sense is that the consensus on the bad character of footballers is driven by envy and is exacerbated by it being one of the few high status professions where most of the top jobs are taken by black and working class operatives.
Mr. xP, I didn't say the electorate was disenfranchised, I said powers that were granted to the Government on a stewardship basis were given away to the EU without democratic consent.
We still held elections, but the powers we granted the governments subsequent were inferior.
I've also stated repeatedly I see no need for a trade deal with the US and its importance is drastically overestimated. I've never suggested anything along the lines of getting a US deal to 'own the libs', as you put it.
Leaving the EU is not easy. And I would've preferred another way. The last realistic opportunity for that was the promised and then reneged upon Lisbon referendum, which would've been the perfect chance to roundly reject the terms and get something better or even just leave matters as they were previously.
Mr. xP, I didn't say the electorate was disenfranchised, I said powers that were granted to the Government on a stewardship basis were given away to the EU without democratic consent.
Mr. xP, I didn't say the electorate was disenfranchised, I said powers that were granted to the Government on a stewardship basis were given away to the EU without democratic consent.
We still held elections, but the powers we granted the governments subsequent were inferior.
I've also stated repeatedly I see no need for a trade deal with the US and its importance is drastically overestimated. I've never suggested anything along the lines of getting a US deal to 'own the libs', as you put it.
Leaving the EU is not easy. And I would've preferred another way. The last realistic opportunity for that was the promised and then reneged upon Lisbon referendum, which would've been the perfect chance to roundly reject the terms and get something better or even just leave matters as they were previously.
I am unclear on the distinction between "electorate was disenfranchised" and "without democratic consent" but never mind.
And my point about "owning the libs" is Brexit will result in outcomes inimical to the health and well being of the Nation, and our only argument for doing it is "remoaners"
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
No it wasn't. Saddam was a bad guy,, but Bush and Blair denied regime change was the aim, merely a by product of removing his non-existant WMDs. That by your admission was a lie. That Saddam was falsely implicated in 9/11 was a cynical justification too.
I'm pretty sure both Bush and Blair (Bush especially) had regime change as an explicit aim.
Anyway, I am not a fan of either Bush or Blair. The right thing backed by the wrong people is still the right thing. The wrong thing backed by the right people is still wrong. Toppling Saddam was the right thing to do.
Off Topic
Someone has off-topiced you which is bizarre because there has been hardly a comment about Biden's prospective VP for ages.
So to answer your point, yes regime change was the aim, but it was sold to us as something entirely different. Saddam was smart in that his horrific reign of terror kept many disparate groups in check and a semblance of order. When he fell, Pandora's box was opened.
On topic
Yes I think Biden's VP selection will be affected by BLM. Kamala is in the driving seat, as borne out by the betting.
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
Spot on. They also think he's lazy...
Prime Minister. Mayor of London for two terms. Foreign Secretary. Several best-selling books. Hyper-successful journalist. TV personality.Even found time to sire six (at least) children by three mothers, and who knows what else.
Just imagine what he'd achieve if he put in an honest day's work.
I find this debate about the Iraq war somewhat strange. At the time the only people who opposed the war were regarded as left wing trouble makers with that communist corbyn at the heart of the protests. Now it appears the vast majority of the Conservative party were against it all along. Also where is the criticism of UK involvement in Syria. The retrospective analysis of the second gulf war is mainly aimed at trashing Blair whilst ignoring their own support for the action at the time.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
The march happened over a month before the vote to commit our forces to war even took place. It is therefore logically impossible for the march to have been against our troops, rather than against the upcoming political decision on whether or not to deploy them.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
You're all right with HIGNFY. Jeremy Clarkson (I'm sure it was him) wrote a piece saying he was amazed just how unprepared and unscripted it all was.
Top Gear was very tightly scripted, in the same way as a sitcom, with a writers' room debating every line and joke for days before it was recorded.
Panel shows are much less scripted, they have a few points to follow and the presenter has a rough script with themes and jokes on it - but the real trick is in the editing, they record for two hours or more to produce a 30 and 45 minute edit to air.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
The march happened over a month before the vote to commit our forces to war even took place. It is therefore logically impossible for the march to have been against our troops, rather than against the upcoming political decision on whether or not to deploy them.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
I just didn't have you down as a lefty, Troops Out kind of guy. Noted for future interactions.
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
Spot on. They also think he's lazy...
Prime Minister. Mayor of London for two terms. Foreign Secretary. Several best-selling books. Hyper-successful journalist. TV personality.Even found time to sire six (at least) children by three mothers, and who knows what else.
Just imagine what he'd achieve if he put in an honest day's work.
If it weren't for the current social distancing criteria, I'd say get a room.
In bookstores, they have to quarantine any book that someone touches
That's OK if you are the one that touched it, but if you are the next customer, you can't look at that book for another 3 days.
Why wouldn't you order it from Amazon?
How does Amazon put it in the box?
I'm thinking that it has been wise to treat Oakeshott like a biohazard since long before Coronavirus.
In shops it would be realistic to give customers disposable gloves at the door (only cost a couple of pence each if that), or switch partially to an older 'behind the counter' model for some.
Suspect we will see an upswing in exploitation of the 'remote selling' laws, where you can order 6 outfits, try them on and send 4 back within your legal period. Up for reform?
On Oakeshott I agree - have not trusted her since she rode to prominence on the back of single-sourced hearsay with respect to the Cameron pig's head story.
It's also worth a note that there are now large areas of the country where only a single case of Corona has arisen within a week. The list from Jun 12 had 74 local autthority areas in it, which suggests some areas are getting to where they need to be.
Mr. xP, to me, disenfranchised is an ongoing rather than one-off thing, but there we are.
My point is, you've got to look at the whole situation and what preceded it. The country didn't just wake up one day and dislike the EU. The political class had been drifting away from the electorate for some time. And when the time came for the case to be made the case was made incredibly poorly.
Mr. Glenn, there was, before the existence of the EU.
The schools plan is absolute bonkers. What about parents who can't "work" from home while their kids are not in school? What about the kids who don't have degree-educated parents who will be supplementing their learning at home?
This sort of nonsense shows that - unless we decide to accept a massive death toll - we cannot live with the virus. We have to do the work to get rid of it so that we can get the schools back as normal.
If you cannot look after them then don't have children, what is point of having them and then farming them out to strangers like a pet dog.
I am sure this comment was only meant as a "joke" but it's not a very funny one if you've spent the last three months run ragged trying to work to keep a roof over your kids' head while at the same time trying to make sure they are still getting some semblance of an education and dealing with their emotional problems created by not seeing friends and the uncertainty of when they will go back to school. Many parents have to work to pay their mortgage, food bills etc and have not unreasonably built their working lives and childcare arrangements around an expectation that their kids will be in school between 9 and 3.30 - not to mention after school care arrangements that have also been shut down. Like I say, if a joke not funny, if not a joke just pig ignorant.
How did they manage to live years ago I wonder. Cut your cloth accordingly , if you cannot afford it do not have children and farm them out to strangers. Build their life around what they can afford.
This is a moronic comment. Let me explain my own situation and perhaps you can explain to me where we went wrong. We have three children. My wife and I both work. The children used to go to school five days a week. After school my wife would look after the children two days a week and we paid someone to look after them in our house the other three days. This was a situation that worked well for all concerned, was well within our budget, provided work and allowed us to make a large tax contribution. In short, we were behaving entirely responsibly. Now two of the children no longer go to school and we cannot employ somebody in our house and ensure social distancing rules are met. But we cannot give up our jobs without putting ourselves at financial risk. I suspect our tax payments also continue to be welcome. Meanwhile our youngest child is increasingly emotionally volatile as a result of the disruption to her life and schooling. So I'm not really in the mood to listen to some moronic internet troll opine on our irresponsibility as parents. You clearly know absolutely nothing about it.
Only one moron here I am afraid, unable to have a civilised discussion. Think you should go have a lie down in a darkened corner instead of making a right show of yourself and being an ignoramus.
Silly comments from you this morning Malcolm.
Maybe tend the turnips for now and come back again later on a different subject.
I don't find them silly, was a far better country when parents looked after their own children rather than chasing money.
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
Spot on. They also think he's lazy...
Prime Minister. Mayor of London for two terms. Foreign Secretary. Several best-selling books. Hyper-successful journalist. TV personality.Even found time to sire six (at least) children by three mothers, and who knows what else.
Just imagine what he'd achieve if he put in an honest day's work.
His personal intervention also swung the Brexit vote, which had previously been seen as virtually unlosable for Remain.
Given all the things a supposedly 'lazy' Boris has achieved, it would be reasonable to assume that a hard-working Boris would soon be announcing the British conquest of Mars...
It's interesting, if rather frightening. And has faint echos of his disastrous Zahari-Ratcjiffe remarks.
We've talked about this a few times. What it boils down to is that Boris, a very successful and sought after after dinner speaker, had some standard material that he churned out pretty regularly and Vine happened to catch twice. Well, quelle surprise.
Er, no. Everyone knows that after-dinner speakers re-use material - that bit is hardly surprising. The point of Vine’s anecdote is how hard Johnson worked to maintain the illusion of "I just got here & now I’m making the great off the cuff speech, aren’t I amazing?" to absolutely everyone involved.
Every part of the "Boris" persona is an act, carefully honed over the years: the fluffy hair (which someone floofs for him before he goes on camera), the "off-the-cuff" witticisms, all of it.
That’s the point.
Oh Lordy, please don't tell me that most of his contributions on HIGNFY were scripted as well, I'd never recover.
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
The suggestion, I think, is that Johnson's persona is entirely an act. Whereas other image conscious politicians aim to project what they are in the best light. May and Brown were pretty much what people saw. Cameron and Blair didn't try to hide the fact they were slick political operators. That was part of their offer.
While I think this is largely but not entirely the case, the problem for Johnson now is the audience is tired of his act.
PB would be going apeshit if the gov't pulled this kind of stunt.
Can you imagine the daily news conferences.
I can only assume the Spanish Government is doing this to attract tourists
So much So that they won’t let the Brits in yet. I can only speak for where I live on the costa Blanca where the outbreak has been contained with minimal cases and few deaths. The unlocking process has been excellently managed With everybody knowing what is required and what happens next. I’m not sure where people are getting the figures for Spain from but it’s not really relevant given the evidence on the ground.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
The march happened over a month before the vote to commit our forces to war even took place. It is therefore logically impossible for the march to have been against our troops, rather than against the upcoming political decision on whether or not to deploy them.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
I just didn't have you down as a lefty, Troops Out kind of guy. Noted for future interactions.
You can note whatever invented bollocks you like. I didn't want Britain to waste her lives and resources on a conflict that held no benefits for anyone, let alone us. If you want to take that as 'lefty', then there's no helping you.
At a time when the consensus is that footballers are overpaid, spoilt prima donnas with the morality of alley cats Rashford is rather refreshing: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53042684
A man who has certainly not forgotten where he came from.
Indeed so. And I'm sure the same goes for many others. My sense is that the consensus on the bad character of footballers is driven by envy and is exacerbated by it being one of the few high status professions where most of the top jobs are taken by black and working class operatives.
However when you hear them it is obvious most are not in Mensa, majority struggle to string a sentence together.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
The march happened over a month before the vote to commit our forces to war even took place. It is therefore logically impossible for the march to have been against our troops, rather than against the upcoming political decision on whether or not to deploy them.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
I just didn't have you down as a lefty, Troops Out kind of guy. Noted for future interactions.
You can note whatever invented bollocks you like. I didn't want Britain to waste her lives and resources on a conflict that held no benefits for anyone, let alone us. If you want to take that as 'lefty', then there's no helping you.
As I said, you need to change your username, pronto.
A horrifying example of why we need the BLM movement this morning. In the queue for Wilko's. Rancid gammon in the queue talking to his rancid gammon mate on a nearby bench.
Black people should be used as whipping boys. Worse than dogs. Should be kicked instead of the dog. And then "see you later" as he went into the shop.
This is the kind of petty white scum bigotry that Johnson and his team have in mind when banging on about protecting our statues...
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Can we please have a valid citation for your last statement, thanks.
You'll just have to take my word for it, not that I give a fuck whether you believe me or not. Hope that helps!
You need to change your username, sunshine. Marching against our troops is distinctly un-Tory. In fact it could be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
The march happened over a month before the vote to commit our forces to war even took place. It is therefore logically impossible for the march to have been against our troops, rather than against the upcoming political decision on whether or not to deploy them.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
I just didn't have you down as a lefty, Troops Out kind of guy. Noted for future interactions.
Don't think Cummings has got us to invade a middle eastern country yet. Early days, I suppose.
He launched a culture war that continues to rage, and is about to commit us to a trade war, in the middle of a Global pandemic.
The scale of suffering is comparable.
Comparable to the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq? Does anyone - even you - actually believe this nonsense?
What did you make of IDS's support for the invasion at the time, out of interest?
He was the same fucking idiot he's always been. A competent leader would have strung Labour along, then concluded with a devastating speech on the day of the vote: 'The Government has failed to convince the House that invading Iraq will be worth one ounce of British blood or treasure, let alone the civilian deaths that would follow in its wake. The Conservative Party will therefore vote against the motion, and any MP who rebels will be immediately expelled from the party'.
Et voila: war stopped, Blair gone, next election won.
I was on the march against the war, in case you think I'm bullshitting.
Only Ken Clarke would have done that but the Tory membership voted for IDS over Clarke in 2001 and in any case many Tory backbenchers would have rebelled to support the War even if he had, just as Blair had Labour rebels siding with the LDs to oppose the War
Oh, I'm sure it would have been extremely difficult to pull off, but this was one of those cases where it would have been both a political masterstroke and the right thing to do. A little critical and lateral thinking would have been beyond price on that occasion.
IDS did the right thing. It was right to topple Saddam.
'Toppling Saddam' in isolation would certainly have been right, but the problem is that it was impossible to do that in isolation.
Was toppling Saddam worth the coalition lives lost, the Iraqi civilians' lives, the dismantling of the country, the civil war that followed, the empowerment of Iran, the rise of IS and the suffering they've inflicted on the world?
No, I'm sorry but no rational calculation can make the fall of Saddam worth even a fraction of those terrible consequences - many of which could have been and were predicted.
Good man. Absolutely correct.
I hope you agree with me that all MPs who voted in favour are war criminals, and belong in jail, together with their journalist cheerleaders. Be nice to see Gove and Nick Cohen sharing a cell. Blair and Johnson. IDS and Straw.
This cabinet includes Patel, Williamson and Raab (someone who didn't understand that Dover was so important that it has a backup dual carriageway).
Anyone of them can give Letwin a run for worst cabinet minister and would easily win.
Patel should not be grouped with Williamson and Raab. Whilst her pre cabinet appearances on QT etc were worrying, her actual performance as Home Secretary is very near the top of the Cabinet rankings. (Admittedly not difficult).
Overlooking that her previous role in the cabinet was forfeited by committing, oh what do you call it when you collude with a foreign power against your own government?
Comments
The real point is that Boris is far more of an operator than his opponents ever imagine. They gratefully seize on the fluff of his public persona and convince themselves that he is just "lucky". Time after time after time. The truly incredible thing is that it is still working.
Was toppling Saddam worth the coalition lives lost, the Iraqi civilians' lives, the dismantling of the country, the civil war that followed, the empowerment of Iran, the rise of IS and the suffering they've inflicted on the world?
No, I'm sorry but no rational calculation can make the fall of Saddam worth even a fraction of those terrible consequences - many of which could have been and were predicted.
At any stage, over more than four decades, the governments could've consulted the electorate. And they didn't. And when circumstance forced the hand of the political class they conducted the worst campaign imaginable*, managing to lose when they should've won at a canter.
I'm less than delighted with the way things are going. May then Johnson have been rampantly incompetent. But the fact the EU offered us a Canadian deal up until the point we wanted it and then reneged speaks volumes about the level of trust we should have in that organisation.
*Ok, second-worst. It wasn't fronted by Theresa May.
Brexit was, is and will forever remain a really, really, really bad idea.
That we are doing it doesn't make it any better.
Anyway, I am not a fan of either Bush or Blair. The right thing backed by the wrong people is still the right thing. The wrong thing backed by the right people is still wrong. Toppling Saddam was the right thing to do.
The "Boris" persona has worked extremely well for Johnson. No question about it: He’s ridden it right into the Prime Ministership after all.
Personally, I don’t think it’s worked out all that well for the rest of us, but that’s politics for you.
Every time they try and ask an awkward question, Downing Street cut the feed
be the most un-Tory thing it would be possible to do.
We still held elections, but the powers we granted the governments subsequent were inferior.
I've also stated repeatedly I see no need for a trade deal with the US and its importance is drastically overestimated. I've never suggested anything along the lines of getting a US deal to 'own the libs', as you put it.
Leaving the EU is not easy. And I would've preferred another way. The last realistic opportunity for that was the promised and then reneged upon Lisbon referendum, which would've been the perfect chance to roundly reject the terms and get something better or even just leave matters as they were previously.
As noted upthread, we are not solely responsible for Iraq, but we own the entirety of Brexit
And my point about "owning the libs" is Brexit will result in outcomes inimical to the health and well being of the Nation, and our only argument for doing it is "remoaners"
Someone has off-topiced you which is bizarre because there has been hardly a comment about Biden's prospective VP for ages.
So to answer your point, yes regime change was the aim, but it was sold to us as something entirely different. Saddam was smart in that his horrific reign of terror kept many disparate groups in check and a semblance of order. When he fell, Pandora's box was opened.
On topic
Yes I think Biden's VP selection will be affected by BLM. Kamala is in the driving seat, as borne out by the betting.
Prime Minister. Mayor of London for two terms. Foreign Secretary. Several best-selling books. Hyper-successful journalist. TV personality.Even found time to sire six (at least) children by three mothers, and who knows what else.
Just imagine what he'd achieve if he put in an honest day's work.
Why are you making an argument that is directly contradicted by basic facts?
Panel shows are much less scripted, they have a few points to follow and the presenter has a rough script with themes and jokes on it - but the real trick is in the editing, they record for two hours or more to produce a 30 and 45 minute edit to air.
I can only assume the Spanish Government is doing this to attract tourists
Suspect we will see an upswing in exploitation of the 'remote selling' laws, where you can order 6 outfits, try them on and send 4 back within your legal period. Up for reform?
On Oakeshott I agree - have not trusted her since she rode to prominence on the back of single-sourced hearsay with respect to the Cameron pig's head story.
It's also worth a note that there are now large areas of the country where only a single case of Corona has arisen within a week. The list from Jun 12 had 74 local autthority areas in it, which suggests some areas are getting to where they need to be.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1271478390705590275
My point is, you've got to look at the whole situation and what preceded it. The country didn't just wake up one day and dislike the EU. The political class had been drifting away from the electorate for some time. And when the time came for the case to be made the case was made incredibly poorly.
Mr. Glenn, there was, before the existence of the EU.
Given all the things a supposedly 'lazy' Boris has achieved, it would be reasonable to assume that a hard-working Boris would soon be announcing the British conquest of Mars...
While I think this is largely but not entirely the case, the problem for Johnson now is the audience is tired of his act.
Black people should be used as whipping boys. Worse than dogs. Should be kicked instead of the dog. And then "see you later" as he went into the shop.
This is the kind of petty white scum bigotry that Johnson and his team have in mind when banging on about protecting our statues...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269837128059453440?s=20
I hope you agree with me that all MPs who voted in favour are war criminals, and belong in jail, together with their journalist cheerleaders. Be nice to see Gove and Nick Cohen sharing a cell. Blair and Johnson. IDS and Straw.
Yes, all of them.