politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast. So Boris Johnson is PM. What

The obvious and glaring question is whether Brexit has overwhelmed all previously held tribal political beliefs. ie does it matter what the LDs vs Lab's NHS policy is if one is explicitly remain and one who knows (and of course Cons are explicitly leave). @HYUFD for example thinks it has, and posts endlessly things such as "...will lose/gain Lab Leave voters..." as though being a Labour Party supporter of X years means nothing vs Leave/Remain.

I am not so sure. And if that is the case (ie Brexit doesn't, ahem, trump everything) then the LDs as a not-Johnson not-Corbyn party must be in with a real shout everywhere.

Mr. Jessop, smart move having Allen McNish[sp] as W Series commentator.

Odd how Scots tend provide the best F1 coverage (McNish, McKenzie[sp], Coulthard).

Gove, Johnson and Cummings:

"The trio’s reunification sets up the most extraordinary denouement to the Brexit story, like one of those scenes in a rock bio-pic in which the ageing musicians decide to “get the band back together” for one last gig."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-can-go-from-frenemy-to-tory-hero-psf3sj9z6

Beibheirli_C said:

rottenborough said:

Harris_Tweed said:

I know it's bad, but every time I see this pic I'm getting the Looney Toons theme sequence in my head. I reassure myself it *is* only the background (as per https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91gOCgWhHJL._SX300_.jpg)

https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1154672704789909505?s=20

Hot air.

I wonder who he thinks Boris is going to negotiate with? AIUI, the EU Team is disbanded. Gone. Exit stage left pursued by a Johnson

If Merkel and Macron decide in August that there is some point in negotiating, then they will find a way. That is a massive 'if'.

I very much doubt they will now. The stuff on 'backstop has to be removed' entirely was the end for EU side, I think.

We are headed to an early election based on 'Back Boris' and 'Back No Deal'. Most important election since the War?

I haven't seen any reference to the huge tax cuts Boris was proposing prior to being elected nor the inconsistency with the huge spending he is proposing now.

Luckyguy1983 said:

There are a lot of 'gloomsters and doomsters' on PB this morning! I wasn't a Boris fan but nobody I liked for the leadership could have given that commons performance. He's doing well so far.

Sunny optimism butters no parsnips.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jessop, smart move having Allen McNish[sp] as W Series commentator.

Odd how Scots tend provide the best F1 coverage (McNish, McKenzie[sp], Coulthard).

McNish was a really good driver, and his relative lack of success in F1 shows how important it is to get a decent car. Three-times winner of the Le Mans 24 hours, and winner of the WEC. Yet he did nothing in his one year with Toyota - perhaps because they were a new team. (I actually thought he'd spent more than one year there, but wiki says only one).

As for Scots commentators: Scottish drivers have always hit above their weight in motorsport: there is a long and illustrious line of them that I hope will continue into the future. But Murray Walker, who will always be the best motorsports commentator, was English.

Mr. Jessop, "There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire."

kle4 said:

I actually kind of agree with him on that point. I don't think he is an awful speaker, he can entertain, exactly but I dont think hes great and without accent privilege I think it would get short shrift.

Yes. I agree. There is more to him than class privilege.

But there's no doubt that money / eton / oxford breeds a particular brand of self regard and confidence that together with connections forged puts a very loaded dice in your gilded palm.

This is why kids get sent to top public schools. That's what the parents get for their money. It's expensive but it's worth it. No, let's be more precise - it's worth it because it's expensive.

OllyT said:

YBarddCwsc said:

OllyT said:

MattW said:

Gallowgate said:

https://twitter.com/smiffysmifston/status/1154536665718956033?s=21

Not sure where Swinson is going to end up.

The first speech as leader was very shouty about "inclusive", but she did seem to exclude a lot of people. Very tribal.

And she has a bit of a history of going Missing in Action when awkward questions arise - not possible for a leader.

And of course Layla Moran is still in post.

For many people like me not being Corbyn and not being Johnson is enough.The old duopoly couldn't really have done any more to help a LibDem revival and as we saw last night in the 2 Gloucester by elections they can take take seats and votes of either side.

Possibly. I'd be cautious, as Swinson has had little public scrutiny yet.

The little I have seen suggests that (putting it most charitably) she has a very steep learning curve to surmount if there is a GE in the Autumn.

The LibDem revival didn't suddenly start last week with a new leader though. It has far more to do with Brexit and the leaders of Lab/Con than it has to do with who is Lib Dem leader.

As I said it could go either way, we've seen Lib Dem surges before. If the stars align and Corbyn stays on as Labour leader and Johnson leads us into a disastrous No Deal Brexit I can see the Lib Dems reaching a tipping point in which FPTP might actually assist them for once.

The Podsmead ward in Gloucester was the interesting one last night. Previously a Labour/Tory marginal and 67% leave voting. Lib Dems come from nowhere to win with 30%.

Boris's sudden enthusiasm for GM crops (mentioned earlier) at the behest of our new American overlords might allow the LibDems to open a second front.

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Per day. I was pl comd of a BCR platoon in Gulf 1 and the forecast was for 100-200 casualties per day. And this was a penny ante middle eastern dictator and attendant out of date kit.

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

Modern democracies fighting wars is an issue unless clear and present case e.g. Falklands.

Mind you, whether we go in or not will be irrelevant as Trump certainly wouldn't and that would be the end of NATO overnight I suspect. Pretty sure NATO wont last his second term.

1) Thatcher government naval cuts tempt Argentina to invade

LOL

Perfectly minding their own business Poles tempt Germany to invade.

What if Boris Johnson is planning to call an election after the recess off the back of a polling bounce, and there is no bounce?

TheJezziah said:

This is before we get into Putin's support for Brexit.

They have all the same friends as well, Bannon, Trump etc.

Putin's man is in Downing Street.

Very true. However, given Corbyn's own vacillation around Nato collective defence, and the Stalinist/anti-imperialist bilge of Milne and Murray, he'll be quite happy with your man next.

Traitors all.

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Their Achilles heel is the grudge between that group and the ERG/Farage. Fobbing off Steve Baker could be a big mistake.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1154680781975040000

At least some ERG will not vote for a deal, whatever shape or form. They are, as Rentoul describes them, "Brexiteers against Brexit".

They'll probably decide that No Deal is unacceptable as well, seeing as Calais is not returned to the English.

Jo Swinson seems to be more bothered about Corbyn than Brexit.
To be fair ,I guess it was the same with Brown.
Lib dems when push comes to shuff always back up the conservatives.
As they do in the city of York council.

rottenborough said:

Pretty sure NATO wont last his second term.

It will definitely be a card he plays if he gets in trouble as pulling out of NATO would be fantastically popular with his base. Anybody who doubts this should take a look at The_Donald subreddit.

Who has BoZo shafted more?

1. Steve Baker
2. Graham Brady

Theuniondivvie said:

Endillion said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Endillion said:

AlastairMeeks said:

1) Boris Johnson doesn't care about Salisbury. He cares so little that he ducked out of a Cobra briefing on the subject to be photographed resigning.

2) In the grand scheme of things, Salisbury doesn't matter much to Vladimir Putin anyway. His main strategic aim in Europe is to foment chaos and disorder, so he can divide and rule. Boris Johnson is an ideal choice from that perspective.

Yes, I take your point. Although I think Johnson's plan (to the extent he has one - maybe "vague aim" would be better) is for close cooperation with the EU on matters that are important to us both - he's certainly not a Cash/Redwood type radical on the subject of Europe.

Otherwise, Johnson tends to be socially quite liberal and economically right wing. Pretty much the polar opposite of the authoritarian, socially conservative Putin.

Only one thing matters to Boris Johnson and that's Boris Johnson. Everything else will be thrown to the wolves sooner or later.

Vladimir Putin won't be very interested in Boris Johnson's views anyway. He's just a useful tool.

I'll put you down as "cautiously optimistic" about Johnson's premiership.

My original point (which you've now made also) was that Corbyn as PM would be a fantastic result for Putin. Maybe I shouldn't post at 5am - it seems I get carried away a bit.

It seems that nostalgia for the Soviet Union isn't limited to certain cliques in the Labour party. Putin isn't a communist except in a psychologically formative sense, he's an enthusiastic and unscrupulous exponents of Russian power & influence in a long tradition that predates and will long outlive the C20th 'experiment'. He would welcome Corbyn for almost exactly the same reasons as he'd welcomes BJ (& Trump, Salvini, Bolsanaro etc), a chaotic and weakened West. The idea that there's some sort of ideological affinity between V.V.Putin and J.B.Corbyn is for the birds.

I quite agree. Corbyn's reluctance to challenge Soviet exertion of power and influence is what makes him attractive to Putin, not his economic views.

Conversely, Johnson's tub-thumping harking back to the glory days of the Empire, and willingness to send troops abroad to defend British interests, is what (in theory) makes him a problem for Putin. Brexit notwithstanding.

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Their Achilles heel is the grudge between that group and the ERG/Farage. Fobbing off Steve Baker could be a big mistake.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1154680781975040000

Clearly it's time for Baker and Francois to bring down the government once again.

AndyJS said:

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Their Achilles heel is the grudge between that group and the ERG/Farage. Fobbing off Steve Baker could be a big mistake.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1154680781975040000

Clearly it's time for Baker and Francois to bring down the government once again.

The nuclear option would be to defect to the Brexit Party and say the Tories can't be trusted because they're all diehard Remainers. Accuse the Tories of "institutional Europeanism".

rcs1000 said:

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Similar to Osborne’s bailout of RoI.

rcs1000 said:

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Putin is not going to invade, but if he did, why would a Brexit Britain that just told the Balts and Poles to piss off be interested?

StuartDickson said:

prh47bridge said:

Roger said:

prh47bridge said:

edmundintokyo said:

edmundintokyo said:

I've got something similar here, not working in Chrome, although Firefox is OK. Been this way for a week or two.

I can still see the embedded tweets in Firefox, though.

These are the errors I'm getting - apparently Chrome is applying a content security policy and thinks it's not allowed to load the iframe from vanilla, but I can't see anything in the headers or the source code that sets that, so I guess it's just a setting that Chrome made up.

https://pastebin.com/zxAf0p1h

Looking at those headers and doing some digging, the policy is not being made up by Chrome. The response from Vanilla that contains the comments has a header which includes the directive "Content-Security-Policy: frame-ancestors 'self' www2.politicalbetting.com *politicalbetting.com". That tells the browser that it should only embed the comments in a page from the same source as the comments (i.e. politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com) or from any domain ending politicalbetting.com. The www2.politicalbetting.com bit of the directive is actually redundant because that will also match *politicalbetting.com. So it appears that Chrome thinks the main page is not from politicalbetting.com but from some other domain. Strange.

I can't understand much of your conversation with Edmund but I can't access any of the comments on Firefox though everything else seems normal. I'm having to access them on Chrome which is more difficult. Can either of you lend a solution?

For Firefox, enter "about:config" in the address bar (without the quotes) and hit Enter. Click on the button to accept the risk. Scroll down to security.csp.enable and double click on it so that the right hand column reads "false". This makes you less secure so use at your own risk.

Anyone having difficulties on Chrome could try this plugin - https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disable-content-security/ieelmcmcagommplceebfedjlakkhpden?hl=en

Disclaimer: I've not tested it, the reviews are mixed and it makes you less secure, so use at your own risk.

Other options: Use Edge which seems quite happy with the current settings or wait for Vanilla to fix it.

If Vanilla is causing the problems, Vanilla can fix the problems.

I realise we are basket-case politics geeks, but don’t expect us to transmogrify into tech geeks too.

I don't expect people to become tech geeks. I only posted this because Roger asked for a solution. I agree that the right thing is for Vanilla to fix it. The solutions I've suggested should only be regarded as a temporary workaround for anyone who wants a quick fix rather than waiting for Vanilla.

TOPPING said:

Huge insult to those people that you think they are only there as tokens. Sajid you think is just tokenism?

Take a look at yourself.

It would be if I just assumed every female or BAME or LGBT or blue collar or disabled person who got a top job got it for mainly that reason.

But I don't. In fact I tend to assume otherwise because most preferment goes the other way.

However one should not be so consumed by Political Correctness as to be scared to identify tokenism where it looks overwhelmingly likely.

Javid? Certainly not just tokenism. Was Home Sec. Popular. Seems able enough. Will do as he is told.

And good optics given Johnson and the party's islamophobia problem to promote the only high profile Muslim in cabinet.

Foxy said:

rcs1000 said:

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Putin is not going to invade, but if he did, why would a Brexit Britain that just told the Balts and Poles to piss off be interested?

We would have left the EU - not NATO.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1154688660689817601

Johnson is a populist and will fight a populist campaign, pitting external end internal enemies against the will of the people and fighting to uphold the latter against the former. The EU and the Irish will be the enemies without. Parliament and Remainers will be the enemies within. The Scots and the majority in Northern Ireland opposed to no deal will fall between the two groups. It will be ugly and divisive. Will it work? I have a terrible fear that it might but I actually don't think it will, because Remainers are no longer complacent like they were in 2016.

But Remainers are split across parties.

Greens and LibDems seem to be struggling to create a united campaign, never mind with Jezza.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

Huge insult to those people that you think they are only there as tokens. Sajid you think is just tokenism?

Take a look at yourself.

Javid? Certainly not just tokenism. Was Home Sec. Popular. Seems able enough. Will do as he is told. .

Er, no, actually. Not popular. Deeply disliked by civil servants who think he's only interested in himself. Whilst that might be true of many politicians, they think he exudes self-promotion to the detriment of his work.

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

TOPPING said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

Modern democracies fighting wars is an issue unless clear and present case e.g. Falklands.

Mind you, whether we go in or not will be irrelevant as Trump certainly wouldn't and that would be the end of NATO overnight I suspect. Pretty sure NATO wont last his second term.

1) Thatcher government naval cuts tempt Argentina to invade

LOL

Perfectly minding their own business Poles tempt Germany to invade.

A short history of the Falklands War:
1) Thatcher government naval cuts tempt Argentina to invade
2) War
3) Even more Thatcher government naval cuts mean we could not do so again
4) John Nott walks out of interview when pressed on this point by the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

Re point 1, see for instance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Endurance_(1967)

1) Person walking down the road with fancy watch tempts muggers to steal said watch.

Theresa May axing 20,000 coppers ... (soon to be replaced by Boris if we can find enough new lockers).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kit-malthouse-says-plan-to-hire-police-is-at-risk-from-lack-of-lockers-6dsnplnjn

1) Mrs Thatcher cut the navy.
2) Argentina (as had been predicted and as the government had been warned) invaded.
3) War.
4) Mrs Thatcher made yet more cuts to the navy so the armada could not be re-assembled.
5) John Nott walked out when challenged on this by Robin Day.

For all your sophistry, you do not seem to be challenging the facts of the cuts. It is Conservative governments that have decimated the armed forces. Putin would vote Tory.

rottenborough said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1154688660689817601

Johnson is a populist and will fight a populist campaign, pitting external end internal enemies against the will of the people and fighting to uphold the latter against the former. The EU and the Irish will be the enemies without. Parliament and Remainers will be the enemies within. The Scots and the majority in Northern Ireland opposed to no deal will fall between the two groups. It will be ugly and divisive. Will it work? I have a terrible fear that it might but I actually don't think it will, because Remainers are no longer complacent like they were in 2016.

But Remainers are split across parties.

Greens and LibDems seem to be struggling to create a united campaign, never mind with Jezza.

That is my chief source of fear. But I think there will be unprecedented tactical voting as long as Labour pivots properly to Remain (which I think they will, and essentially have already).

Watson now believes that he was one of Beech’s victims, although this requires a rather capacious definition of victimhood.

https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/the-many-lies-of-carl-beech/

Mr. Jessop, finished the race. Honestly, found it very entertaining.

Mysticrose said:

Er, no, actually. Not popular. Deeply disliked by civil servants who think he's only interested in himself. Whilst that might be true of many politicians, they think he exudes self-promotion to the detriment of his work.

That rings true. Trouble is, Matt Hancock has cornered that so all others look full of integrity by comparison.

But I meant popular in the party. Which I understand he is.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1154688660689817601

Johnson is a populist and will fight a populist campaign, pitting external end internal enemies against the will of the people and fighting to uphold the latter against the former. The EU and the Irish will be the enemies without. Parliament and Remainers will be the enemies within. The Scots and the majority in Northern Ireland opposed to no deal will fall between the two groups. It will be ugly and divisive. Will it work? I have a terrible fear that it might but I actually don't think it will, because Remainers are no longer complacent like they were in 2016.

But Remainers are split across parties.

Greens and LibDems seem to be struggling to create a united campaign, never mind with Jezza.

That is my chief source of fear. But I think there will be unprecedented tactical voting as long as Labour pivots properly to Remain (which I think they will, and essentially have already).

I doubt it. Seamus and Len wont have it.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May axing 20,000 coppers ... (soon to be replaced by Boris if we can find enough new lockers).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kit-malthouse-says-plan-to-hire-police-is-at-risk-from-lack-of-lockers-6dsnplnjn

1) Mrs Thatcher cut the navy.
2) Argentina (as had been predicted and as the government had been warned) invaded.
3) War.
4) Mrs Thatcher made yet more cuts to the navy so the armada could not be re-assembled.
5) John Nott walked out when challenged on this by Robin Day.

For all your sophistry, you do not seem to be challenging the facts of the cuts. It is Conservative governments that have decimated the armed forces. Putin would vote Tory.

Your point is that by cutting policemen it is all of a sudden the victims' fault that they are mugged/shot/burgled. And by cutting the Royal Navy, it was Thatcher's fault that Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.

That would be quite funny if it wasn't so worrying.

https://twitter.com/alastairjam/status/1154696814366474240

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1154698143700783105

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Similar to Osborne’s bailout of RoI.

And I thought it was out of the goodness of the collective Brit heart. That's certainly the impression one gets from the wilder shores of Brexitania and their cries of 'ungrateful Paddys' (or Murphys as our new PM would prefer to call them).

rottenborough said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/cath_haddon/status/1154688660689817601

Johnson is a populist and will fight a populist campaign, pitting external end internal enemies against the will of the people and fighting to uphold the latter against the former. The EU and the Irish will be the enemies without. Parliament and Remainers will be the enemies within. The Scots and the majority in Northern Ireland opposed to no deal will fall between the two groups. It will be ugly and divisive. Will it work? I have a terrible fear that it might but I actually don't think it will, because Remainers are no longer complacent like they were in 2016.

But Remainers are split across parties.

Greens and LibDems seem to be struggling to create a united campaign, never mind with Jezza.

That is my chief source of fear. But I think there will be unprecedented tactical voting as long as Labour pivots properly to Remain (which I think they will, and essentially have already).

I doubt it. Seamus and Len wont have it.

Maybe. I am not sure about Len, I think his position is more nuanced. McDonnell and other MPs in the inner circle are strongly for Remain now. I think Seumas can be overruled. But who knows. I know it is dangerous to view any election as a rerun of the last one, but I think the lesson of 2017 was that there is a majority opposed to no deal or hard Brexit that will probably find a way of making itself heard.

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

So some appointments of Conservative BAME MPs to high office are tokenism and others aren't. Thank goodness you are able so acutely to distinguish which is which.

☺

Well I am notoriously objective.

But I will admit it was the Patel bomb that triggered me here.

And to offer something less churlish - no ifs no buts the simple uncaveated fact that a Conservative cabinet has strong asian representation is a Good Thing.

The appointment of Patel would rightly bring out Bodhidharma in a frothing rage.

Stark_Dawning said:

Scott_P said:

williamglenn said:

Their Achilles heel is the grudge between that group and the ERG/Farage. Fobbing off Steve Baker could be a big mistake.

https://twitter.com/robpowellnews/status/1154680781975040000

Boris should just disband the ERG. He's riding high at the moment - even elements of the Left are in awe. Do it now, Boris, while you're untouchable!

Why? Watching Boris herding cats is far more entertaining than watching Mrs May doing so.

stodge said:

StuartDickson said:

Stodge: “Parties in Government have a duty to the whole country not just those who voted for them or for a particular policy.”

Very old-fashioned. Quaint even.

By that criterion, out of the five governments in these islands, only the ones in Dublin and Edinburgh are fulfilling their duty.

You may well be right but that's how I see it, my friend. We can't have a Government in Westminster whose sole concerns are those who voted for one option in a referendum over three years ago. It sounds absurd just writing it.

The world has moved on yet the UK seems as always stuck in the ruts of its own history.

I agree with you and have said so in thread headers too. It is a shame that such basic things need to be repeated.

Theuniondivvie said:

tlg86 said:

rcs1000 said:

StuartDickson said:

rcs1000 said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Dura_Ace said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If, say, Estonia is invaded by Russia at a time when Britain's Prime Minister is Jeremy Corbyn, do you think Britain would send troops

The Baltic membership of NATO is for deterrence purposes only. If that deterrent fails no NATO member is going to fight the Russian army through the streets of Tallinn no matter who the PM is.

Eh? How does that work as a deterrence then?

Probably not that well in the long term. Do you think the British public and government have the stomach to take hundreds of KIAs every day fighting for fucking Estonia? Because I don't. I was in Basra and the mission there just became don't do anything that might risk casualties and uncomfortable headlines.

I always thought the way it worked was that by risking hundred of casualties in Talinn, we avoid tens of thousands of casualties in Berlin.

Try getting on a soapbox and selling that concept during an election, as the coffins arrive every hour on non-stop news channels.

I guess that's the real problem with politics right now.

I'm going to use an analogy. In the 1980s, the Mexican government got into really serious financial trouble, and the then US Treasury Secretary put in place a system where the US guaranteed Mexican debt. (These were named in his honour, Brady Bonds.)

This led to a huge amount of criticism: why were US taxpayers being put on the hook for the profligacy of Mexican politicians? But it was, of course, the right call. It would have been far more expensive for the US if the Mexican government had gone to the wall. The US recognised that taking on a small amount of risk now, was far cheaper in the long run.

And that's the principle of NATO. We accept that we need to defend places far from home, because stopping an aggressive and expansionary country gets more expensive each time around. Stopping Hitler in the Saarland would have resulted in far fewer deaths, wouldn't it?

Have our horizons become so shrunk, that we risk terrible outcomes to avoid local pain? It's the psychology of the heroin addict, shutting out the real world for now, irrespective of the long term consequences of our actions.

Similar to Osborne’s bailout of RoI.

And I thought it was out of the goodness of the collective Brit heart. That's certainly the impression one gets from the wilder shores of Brexitania and their cries of 'ungrateful Paddys' (or Murphys as our new PM would prefer to call them).

They didn’t have to accept the offer...

https://twitter.com/acatherwoodnews/status/1154702563859718144

rottenborough said:

Stark_Dawning said:

rottenborough said:

https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1154698143700783105

I can imagine Clare Fox defecting from the RCP side of things. Brendan was virtually having orgasms over Boris's cabinet selection yesterday.

Bet Widdecombe is feeling like a right idiot this week.

I can remember Boris and Widdy appearing on Question Time (or some such) early on in Boris's political career. She literally had her head in her hands as Boris uttered what can only be described as verbal salad - a stream of senseless and unconnected pseudo-sentences - in response to a question on higher education. It was all very odd.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/acatherwoodnews/status/1154702563859718144

America has been interfering in other states' democracies (and dictatorships) for decades. That is not to exonerate Russia, as many on the winning side seem to want.

TOPPING said:

So some appointments of Conservative BAME MPs to high office are tokenism and others aren't. Thank goodness you are able so acutely to distinguish which is which.

Javid is a former high flying banker who has previously held a great office of state.
Patel is a former tobacco/alcohol lobbyist who recently was fired/resigned from cabinet in disgrace for conducting her own foreign policy and lying to the PM.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1154702993096433664

Shame. I was looking forward to them receiving a traditional warm Glaswegian welcome.