Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Punters give Johnson just a 32% chance of surviving 2022 – politicalbetting.com

15678911»

Comments

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    Sandpit said:

    The US Navy rarely publicises the location of their subs…..

    https://twitter.com/USNavyEurope/status/1483715936922308612?s=20

    Taking on supplies in Cyprus, you say. That looks awfully convenient for a trip up into the Black Sea…
    As well as a proxy war by foreign protagonists being the wrong way to answer complex questions of allegiance spanning ethnicity and religion, there is also the danger cramming all this stuff into theatre, there is danger of accidents and escalation from there, isn’t there? We have already had accidental prangs and warning shots for getting too close around Crimea.

    Something bigger could kick off by accident.

    I’m not even adding question mark to that last sentence, just jabbing my finger saying “warning you”.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,646
    Reaction to a Gavin Williamson interview(contains bad language)

    https://twitter.com/stimmo/status/1484202722723340290
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,379
    Mr. W, in The Blue Book of the War (1916) I was surprised to read a chapter on British submarines in that part of the world.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,010
    edited January 20
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.
    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Ah, finally I see why you're so keen to leave Vlad to his own devices.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    IshmaelZ said:

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.

    I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.

    So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
    Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?

    There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?

    The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
    1. He doesn't seem stupid

    2. There's a lot of wanna be worldly cynicism abvout this sort of thing. Like people saying All politicians lie, it's expected. It shouldn't be, and the way to keep it in check is come down on them like a t of b when they are caught out

    3. It may always have been done like this, but sexual bullying, drunkenness on the job and industrial level expenses fraud were also business as usual in living memory. Time to stop.

    4. NB also: it used allegedly to be *sexual* misdoings in the little black books, and that has loargely lost its bite. I don't go to gay bdsm clubs but if I did, and got outed, I would neither be embarrassed nor feel I had to resign from everything. So it is very credible the focus has moved from that sort of thing which doesn't matter and no longer works, to constituency funding which matters a lot.
    This is a great post and great response.

    Are you saying though that these rebels also have a wokist agenda to bring business of Parliament and Government into the 21st century? Wether they conscious they have or not?
    Most of the "woke" agenda has happened by accident - a single complaint against Weinstein started an avalanche in Hollywood etc....
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
  • glwglw Posts: 8,255
    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1

    LAB HOLD Bootle.
    I plugged the figures into flavible and get the following on current boundaries:

    Lab 57 (+16)
    CON 15 (-17)
    LD 2 (+1)
    Spkr 1 (-)

    Interestingly William Wragg is projected to narrowly hold Hazel Grove on a uniform swing but Graham Brady loses his seat by 4% to Labour.
    15 seats only in the NW? Do you have a link? I'd be interested to see which they are.
    The NW has some super safe Tory seats.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    Sandpit said:

    The US Navy rarely publicises the location of their subs…..

    https://twitter.com/USNavyEurope/status/1483715936922308612?s=20

    Taking on supplies in Cyprus, you say. That looks awfully convenient for a trip up into the Black Sea…
    As well as a proxy war by foreign protagonists being the wrong way to answer complex questions of allegiance spanning ethnicity and religion, there is also the danger cramming all this stuff into theatre, there is danger of accidents and escalation from there, isn’t there? We have already had accidental prangs and warning shots for getting too close around Crimea.

    Something bigger could kick off by accident.

    I’m not even adding question mark to that last sentence, just jabbing my finger saying “warning you”.
    The journalists on the RN ship said that they saw no sign of alleged warning shots.

    What do you think about my plan to avoid nastiness by selling German interests as well as Ukraine to the Russians for lots of cheap gas and cash, by the way?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.

    I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.

    So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
    Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?

    There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?

    The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
    1. He doesn't seem stupid

    2. There's a lot of wanna be worldly cynicism abvout this sort of thing. Like people saying All politicians lie, it's expected. It shouldn't be, and the way to keep it in check is come down on them like a t of b when they are caught out

    3. It may always have been done like this, but sexual bullying, drunkenness on the job and industrial level expenses fraud were also business as usual in living memory. Time to stop.

    4. NB also: it used allegedly to be *sexual* misdoings in the little black books, and that has loargely lost its bite. I don't go to gay bdsm clubs but if I did, and got outed, I would neither be embarrassed nor feel I had to resign from everything. So it is very credible the focus has moved from that sort of thing which doesn't matter and no longer works, to constituency funding which matters a lot.
    This is a great post and great response.

    Are you saying though that these rebels also have a wokist agenda to bring business of Parliament and Government into the 21st century? Wether they conscious they have or not?
    I think they have made a brave decision to ignore the unwritten rules, and I have a lot of sympathy for the theory that Covid - no physical parliament - no learning How Things Are Done Here - has something to do with it

    btw I would be a *bit* embarrassed about the gay bdsm thing, if you could keep that to yourself
    No worries. Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2: “Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.” 😉

    image
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,378

    COVID summary

    - The big case falls seems to be stopping. This means R is rising. The segmentation of R by age is interesting

    image

    - Hospital admissions. Down.
    - Hospital MV beds. Down.
    - In Hospital. Down.
    - Deaths. Down.

    Long way to go to reach herd immunity......or is it as Leon says Omicron V2 ;-)

    What is really disappointing is booster programme has totally ground to a halt. Only 67k in todays numbers.
    Its not a surprise though. The most vulnerable have been done, and people can see the news about omicron,
    I wouldn't be worried. If they can, they should have their booster. Their loss if you don't.
    For England and Scotland, the remaining numbers eligible for a 3rd shot are

    18 29 2,557,608
    30 39 2,113,409
    40 49 1,466,249
    50 54 539,569
    55 59 413,653
    60 64 256,771
    65 69 149,953
    70 74 105,123
    75 79 72,448
    80+ 133,999
    Still plenty of 50+ that definitely should be getting boosted.
    The 50+ numbers are down to the equivalent numbers of those who aren't getting vaccinated in the first place etc etc

    That being said, they are gradually ticking down....
    Maybe I misunderstood you numbers. I thought those were eligible for a 3rd shot i.e those that had had 2 shots and now could get a booster? So they are in addition to the unvaccinated?
    Yes - they are the numbers of people in each age group that have 2 shots, but not three.

    What I meant was that when you get down to a few hundred K in a group, the rest seem to be "sticky".

    There are some interesting gaps between 1st and 2nd jabs as well, IIRC.
    If I had to make a guess, perhaps it is people who went and got their xth shot while being a bit on the fence, then got COVID and now convinced themselves they must be immune and so don't need to continue to get any more shots.
    Quite possibly correct too.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    algarkirk said:

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.

    I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.

    So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
    Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?

    There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?

    The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
    Legality matters because the whole point of the criminal law is that it applies to everyone equally. Whips, Princes of the royal blood, 10 Downing Street, Police Officers, PMs, MPs and all us plebs all have to keep the same standards of conduct in matters which have criminal sanctions. If that is not the case then Partygate is a nullity about nothing.
    Although in the case of blackmail, it's not quite so clearcut.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60
    (1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

    (a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

    (b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.


    There is no "reasonable person" test for blackmail, as I understand it, so the belief of "reasonable grounds" or "proper means" is actually subject to the particular beliefs of the person charged with the offence.

    Any actual criminal lawyers like to comment ?
    I don't think you need to be a criminal lawyer to know that just because an accused person thinks something was reasonable that doesn't make it reasonable in law!
    The test for blackmail is different.
    If it's judged that the belief was genuine (even if objectively unreasonable), then it does appear to be a defence.
    I don't know what the case law is on how precisely that belief is to be judged, but it's certainly not a general reasonableness test.
    There's kind of a convergence though (maybe).

    If the person is a reasonable person and they claim to believe that an act that is objectively unreasonable was reasonable it follows that they are probably lying with that claim.

    So for the defence to hold they need to demonstrate that they are not a reasonable person. Since only an unreasonable person could genuinely believe what they did was reasonable.

    Quite an interesting one.
    Would a reasonable person with the role of whip behave reasonably?
    You make the assumption that whips are reasonable people.
    Not at all, just questioning whether it would be reasonable for a whip to behave unreasonably (for a non whip). I think the answer to that is yes, at least to an extent, if they are already tolerated and accepted as part of the system.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    Mr. W, in The Blue Book of the War (1916) I was surprised to read a chapter on British submarines in that part of the world.

    Worth reading about. For instance, this chap - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Cromie
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404

    Mr. W, in The Blue Book of the War (1916) I was surprised to read a chapter on British submarines in that part of the world.

    It always startles me that of all the bags by German U-Boats in WW1 and WW2, about half of the overall top 10 were in the Med in WW1.

    I think that the Ukrainians will now be giving thought to naval mines.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,282
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1

    LAB HOLD Bootle.
    I plugged the figures into flavible and get the following on current boundaries:

    Lab 57 (+16)
    CON 15 (-17)
    LD 2 (+1)
    Spkr 1 (-)

    Interestingly William Wragg is projected to narrowly hold Hazel Grove on a uniform swing but Graham Brady loses his seat by 4% to Labour.
    Hazel Grove was LD from 1997 to 2015 and was Remain so Wragg would also almost certainly lose given tactical voting. What a shame!
    A very Liberal seat. There must be a lot of seats like that where Johnson would be anathema to those sorts of voters. It's an elegant suburb about as far from Hartlepool as it's possible to get
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    edited January 20

    Sandpit said:

    The US Navy rarely publicises the location of their subs…..

    https://twitter.com/USNavyEurope/status/1483715936922308612?s=20

    Taking on supplies in Cyprus, you say. That looks awfully convenient for a trip up into the Black Sea…
    As well as a proxy war by foreign protagonists being the wrong way to answer complex questions of allegiance spanning ethnicity and religion, there is also the danger cramming all this stuff into theatre, there is danger of accidents and escalation from there, isn’t there? We have already had accidental prangs and warning shots for getting too close around Crimea.

    Something bigger could kick off by accident.

    I’m not even adding question mark to that last sentence, just jabbing my finger saying “warning you”.
    The journalists on the RN ship said that they saw no sign of alleged warning shots.

    What do you think about my plan to avoid nastiness by selling German interests as well as Ukraine to the Russians for lots of cheap gas and cash, by the way?
    It could work… but wouldn’t the Germans be upset?
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    edited January 20
    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Some problems:
    1. It wouldn't be us "starting" it, it would be the country invading its sovereign neighbour. Ukraine is a sovereign state, recognised by all the countries in the world including by Russia by treaty and by habit.
    2. Becoming involved in the conflict that the Nazis started in the 1930s was the right choice despite it being a "world war". A war isn't a good thing to seek out, but pretending that a war isn't already happening when it is, that's worse.
    3. In terms of deciding who runs a state... if there's a competition between the sovereign will of the people and a semi-mythical history of the founding of Rus deep in mediaeval times... I choose the sovereign will of the people. Any democrat would. Ukraine is not Russia for many reasons, not least because the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia.
    4. "Ideally they would leave it be" butters no parsnips. If you don't understand that bullies need to be deterred, then you probably understand nothing.
    5. The USSR is thankfully long dead. Even if there was an unbroken ideological continuity between then and now, why would you wish that on the Ukrainian people? Wouldn't you rather people progress past discredited systems of government?
    6. I don't know whether you're playing devil's advocate just because you don't like me (in which case, fine, I don't mind), or whether you really believe that Russia somehow has a greater claim on Ukraine than Ukrainians do. If it's the latter, I will retract what I said a few weeks ago when someone accused you of being a fascist. I don't like to level that accusation lightly, but you need to understand a little more about the fascism (yes, real actual literal fascism) that is now at the heart of the Russian state. Go look into it, and climb down from where you're currently playing. This is not a hill you really want to die on.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486
    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    Sandpit said:

    The US Navy rarely publicises the location of their subs…..

    https://twitter.com/USNavyEurope/status/1483715936922308612?s=20

    Taking on supplies in Cyprus, you say. That looks awfully convenient for a trip up into the Black Sea…
    As well as a proxy war by foreign protagonists being the wrong way to answer complex questions of allegiance spanning ethnicity and religion, there is also the danger cramming all this stuff into theatre, there is danger of accidents and escalation from there, isn’t there? We have already had accidental prangs and warning shots for getting too close around Crimea.

    Something bigger could kick off by accident.

    I’m not even adding question mark to that last sentence, just jabbing my finger saying “warning you”.
    The journalists on the RN ship said that they saw no sign of alleged warning shots.

    What do you think about my plan to avoid nastiness by selling German interests as well as Ukraine to the Russians for lots of cheap gas and cash, by the way?
    It could work… but wouldn’t the Germans be upset?
    Well, the Germans think that selling out Ukraine will be considered a bit rude but OK.

    Why wouldn't selling out Germany be considered a bit rude but OK?

    The idea occurred to me while re-reading that great quote from Abe Lincoln

    "I never hear a man advocating slavery, but I have a strong desire to see it practised upon him."
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited January 20
    Roger said:

    HYUFD said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1

    LAB HOLD Bootle.
    I plugged the figures into flavible and get the following on current boundaries:

    Lab 57 (+16)
    CON 15 (-17)
    LD 2 (+1)
    Spkr 1 (-)

    Interestingly William Wragg is projected to narrowly hold Hazel Grove on a uniform swing but Graham Brady loses his seat by 4% to Labour.
    Hazel Grove was LD from 1997 to 2015 and was Remain so Wragg would also almost certainly lose given tactical voting. What a shame!
    A very Liberal seat. There must be a lot of seats like that where Johnson would be anathema to those sorts of voters. It's an elegant suburb about as far from Hartlepool as it's possible to get
    Tory held seats which were over 60% Leave should generally be pretty safe even under Boris now.

    Tory held seats which were 50 to 60% Leave which were not Tory held even from 1997 to 2010 will be a bit more vulnerable.

    Any Tory seat which voted Remain however could go Labour or LD, especially with tactical voting. Hazel Grove is in that category
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    MattW said:

    Mr. W, in The Blue Book of the War (1916) I was surprised to read a chapter on British submarines in that part of the world.

    It always startles me that of all the bags by German U-Boats in WW1 and WW2, about half of the overall top 10 were in the Med in WW1.

    I think that the Ukrainians will now be giving thought to naval mines.
    Smart swarming mines would be a nightmare for Russia in the Black Sea.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
    I don't know what Bonzai Dog is.
    It was a Star Trek reference. What does God need with a starship?
    I thought it was a bit funny that the Duck Island and the trouser press were juxtaposed, and I imagined that the duck was ironing a tiny pair of duck pants. It didn't work, but I don't really mind because I enjoyed it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    MattW said:

    Mr. W, in The Blue Book of the War (1916) I was surprised to read a chapter on British submarines in that part of the world.

    It always startles me that of all the bags by German U-Boats in WW1 and WW2, about half of the overall top 10 were in the Med in WW1.

    I think that the Ukrainians will now be giving thought to naval mines.
    Especially since you can buy the old style contact mines on the international arms market.

    "Oh dear. Your ships hit mine you say? Hmmm the markings on the mines say they were made in Portugal in 1948.... Have you asked the Portuguese about them?"
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    [sigh]

    But didn’t red wall vote Tory on basis they would be getting special treatment? Wasn’t the Hartlepool win on basis, if we swap Labour MP for Tory we get the same favouritism as seats around us who have done that?

    You got voters disgusted by favouritism?

    Surely reality, the voters sealed contract on basis of favouritism?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    dixiedean said:

    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.

    Plenty of Thatcherites cheered Chris Patten losing Bath in 1992, though he was never as disloyal to a Tory leader as Wragg has been to Boris
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.
    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Ah, finally I see why you're so keen to leave Vlad to his own devices.
    There is zero analogous between Ukraine's situation and Scotland's, and it would be a mistake for people either on the unionist or nationalist side to draw parallels.
  • Gary_BurtonGary_Burton Posts: 737
    edited January 20
    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1

    LAB HOLD Bootle.
    I plugged the figures into flavible and get the following on current boundaries:

    Lab 57 (+16)
    CON 15 (-17)
    LD 2 (+1)
    Spkr 1 (-)

    Interestingly William Wragg is projected to narrowly hold Hazel Grove on a uniform swing but Graham Brady loses his seat by 4% to Labour.
    15 seats only in the NW? Do you have a link? I'd be interested to see which they are.
    The NW has some super safe Tory seats.
    https://flavible.co.uk/userprojection?tab=projection

    I put in the prediction for the North West

    The Tories would hold Bolton W, Carlisle, Blackpool N, Fylde, Crewe and Nantwich, Carlisle, Eddisbury, Rossendale and Darwen, Congleton, Ribble Valley, Penrith and the Border, Macclesfield, Wyre and Preston N, S Ribble and Tatton.

    Macclesfield is the most interesting potential target there for Labour and things could worse for the Tories with efficient tactical voting.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    BBC North West
    @BBCNWT
    BREAKING:
    @UKLabour
    newest MP - former Tory
    @Christian4BuryS
    -backs up
    @William_Wragg
    allegations about rebel MPs being threatened by whips. He says he was told that plans for a new high school in his constituency could be scrapped unless he voted a certain way.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/1484149149700341770

    Dynamite

    Jesus.

    That's appalling behaviour by the Government, if true.

    My view is that whips usually offer a mix of bribes and threats, but those are usually confined to the MP. The bribe of preferment, the threat of being ignored, the bribe of a photo op with the PM, the threat of him choosing to visit a neighbouring marginal seat over yours, etc.

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    I’m on the other side of the argument, that this has been going on for ever. I have really thought about it in relation to my own premiership. If my whips can’t do their job effectively I won’t be in long! I want at least three terms to stamp Jadeism on country.

    Of course blabbermouth Judas will say that, but can he prove it? Nope. Because truth is The money didn’t go to the school as it didn’t go to many schools and deserving cases. It doesn’t grow on trees you know, money. Tough decisions had to be made.

    The fact he had to make the office move and shares a space with brooms, mop and slop bucket, is yet another example that not everyone can have what they want all the time, at least not at the lower levels. But do we all cross the floor and bleet like spoiled sheep?

    No.

    He’s someone else’s problem now.
    How does that make it right? Children suffer to save Fat Bozo's arse?
    No, I can't have that at all. Muscular, almost Herculean arse please.
  • Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
    I don't know what Bonzai Dog is.
    It was a Star Trek reference. What does God need with a starship?
    I thought it was a bit funny that the Duck Island and the trouser press were juxtaposed, and I imagined that the duck was ironing a tiny pair of duck pants. It didn't work, but I don't really mind because I enjoyed it.
    It's actually Bonzo Dog.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWs8ER6PJo
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196

    TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
    No. But that is not the point. This is all inexorably heading towards criminality.
  • TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
    They have minds to change?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 74,331
    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Some problems:
    1. It wouldn't be us "starting" it, it would be the country invading its sovereign neighbour. Ukraine is a sovereign state, recognised by all the countries in the world including by Russia by treaty and by habit.
    2. Becoming involved in the conflict that the Nazis started in the 1930s was the right choice despite it being a "world war". A war isn't a good thing to seek out, but pretending that a war isn't already happening when it is, that's worse.
    3. In terms of deciding who runs a state... if there's a competition between the sovereign will of the people and a semi-mythical history of the founding of Rus deep in mediaeval times... I choose the sovereign will of the people. Any democrat would. Ukraine is not Russia for many reasons, not least because the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia.
    4. "Ideally they would leave it be" butters no parsnips. If you don't understand that bullies need to be deterred, then you probably understand nothing.
    5. The USSR is thankfully long dead. Even if there was an unbroken ideological continuity between then and now, why would you wish that on the Ukrainian people? Wouldn't you rather people progress past discredited systems of government?
    6. I don't know whether you're playing devil's advocate just because you don't like me (in which case, fine, I don't mind), or whether you really believe that Russia somehow has a greater claim on Ukraine than Ukrainians do. If it's the latter, I will retract what I said a few weeks ago when someone accused you of being a fascist. I don't like to level that accusation lightly, but you need to understand a little more about the fascism (yes, real actual literal fascism) that is now at the heart of the Russian state. Go look into it, and climb down from where you're currently playing. This is not a hill you really want to die on.
    You've got to hand it to HYUFD pig-headedness. He does generate a lot of passionate responses.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
    No. But that is not the point. This is all inexorably heading towards criminality.
    Which requires a conviction from a jury including at least 3-4 Trumpers to make a difference.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
    No. But that is not the point. This is all inexorably heading towards criminality.
    Which requires a conviction from a jury including at least 3-4 Trumpers to make a difference.
    Gonna be hard to find 3-4 Trumpers in DC
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    There have been plenty of governments that I have disagreed with; indeed most of them. All of them. But I struggle to think of one from my own memory that has been quite as disreputable as this one.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited January 20
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Some problems:
    1. It wouldn't be us "starting" it, it would be the country invading its sovereign neighbour. Ukraine is a sovereign state, recognised by all the countries in the world including by Russia by treaty and by habit.
    2. Becoming involved in the conflict that the Nazis started in the 1930s was the right choice despite it being a "world war". A war isn't a good thing to seek out, but pretending that a war isn't already happening when it is, that's worse.
    3. In terms of deciding who runs a state... if there's a competition between the sovereign will of the people and a semi-mythical history of the founding of Rus deep in mediaeval times... I choose the sovereign will of the people. Any democrat would. Ukraine is not Russia for many reasons, not least because the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia.
    4. "Ideally they would leave it be" butters no parsnips. If you don't understand that bullies need to be deterred, then you probably understand nothing.
    5. The USSR is thankfully long dead. Even if there was an unbroken ideological continuity between then and now, why would you wish that on the Ukrainian people? Wouldn't you rather people progress past discredited systems of government?
    6. I don't know whether you're playing devil's advocate just because you don't like me (in which case, fine, I don't mind), or whether you really believe that Russia somehow has a greater claim on Ukraine than Ukrainians do. If it's the latter, I will retract what I said a few weeks ago when someone accused you of being a fascist. I don't like to level that accusation lightly, but you need to understand a little more about the fascism (yes, real actual literal fascism) that is now at the heart of the Russian state. Go look into it, and climb down from where you're currently playing. This is not a hill you really want to die on.
    1. So what, we are not starting WW3 with a major power like Russia unless it invades a NATO power.
    2. We did not go to war with the Nazis when they annexed Austria and occupied Czechoslovakia and the Sudetenland, only when they invaded Poland.
    3. The argument for Ukraine also applies to Taiwan. We will not go to war over Taiwan with China either, only over Japan or South Korea.

    As for Fascism
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukraines-far-right-warriors-set-for-war-with-russia-f335tvl8v
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,303
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.
    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Ah, finally I see why you're so keen to leave Vlad to his own devices.
    There is zero analogous between Ukraine's situation and Scotland's, and it would be a mistake for people either on the unionist or nationalist side to draw parallels.
    It woz them wot started it.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869

    He is right though isn’t he? This can’t really stand up, so was best not said?

    Putting public money into a seat so it stays with you in elections is not against the law? Making government decisions so the next ship is built Xx, or government hand out to car factory where marginals are, to save jobs where you need them is not against the law?
    If these things were against the law, how on earth would you ever prove it was gerrymandering and not sound decision making?

    And how does whipping work if there isn’t some sort of threat? Even down to collecting all details of private lives, and dropping in conversation it could end up in the papers. The age of social media is probably a boon for the whips? Dr Y will be on later to tell us this is how it’s been for the last nine thousand years. “Does your wife and the papers know what you’ve been up to on your trips to Slough?”

    image

    I *believe*, that as with many things, it depends what was said and by whom.

    I was cautioned by a lawyer, when involved with a commercial dispute, that making statements about what I would or wouldn't do needed to be carefully parsed by a lawyer. Since it was easy to say something that could be construed as a threat in a legal sense.

    So not all "threats" by the Whips might be illegal, but equally, some might be illegal.
    Does it it matter if they are legal or not to the question of wether the system of government can function if they can’t do this?

    There’s probably even laws in civil service you can’t have sensitive details against 100s names In Little black books. Do those laws apply to whips?

    The question here is, when vice chair of 1922 committee opened Pandora’s Box today, did he have a clue what comes out? Where it leads? Or was he simply stupid to have opened his mouth like that?
    There is not, as far as I am aware, any exemption in the law for threats by Whips.

    Unless they are insane, keeping their threats inside the law would be important. And a number of Whips are and have been lawyers by trade.
    And if Beckham had gone to the police when he had a boot kicked into his face, would a football manager have been able to properly manage his dressing room ever again?

    Nice set of Monoliths by the way.
    I believe (@PBLawyers requested) that there is a whole body of law about assault and sports. As in people have be done for assault in sport, but not every physical contact in sport is an assault.

    by the way....

    image
    What is it?
    You mentioned monoliths.. which reminded me.

    It's bolted to the side of the Tower Thistle Hotel in St Katherine's Dock, Tower Bridge in London. I used to live round the corner.

    It's the original prototype for the Monolith in 2001 (the film). Apparently after it was cast (the largest and heaviest acrylic plastic casting ever made), Kubrick decided he didn't want a transparent monolith.

    So it got given to a sculptor, who carved it for the Queens Silver Jubilee.

    It is rather hidden and quite hard to find.
    Nice.

    PB is so amazingly cultural sometimes.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    The UK and the USA agreed specifically to protect Ukraine, from the 1994 treaty known as the Budapest Memorandum.

    https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 7,694
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.

    Plenty of Thatcherites cheered Chris Patten losing Bath in 1992, though he was never as disloyal to a Tory leader as Wragg has been to Boris
    The loss of Patten was a big thing. Maybe YOU cheered.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    edited January 20
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.
    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Ah, finally I see why you're so keen to leave Vlad to his own devices.
    There is zero analogous between Ukraine's situation and Scotland's, and it would be a mistake for people either on the unionist or nationalist side to draw parallels.
    Except that the Essex tank regiment cannot be in both places at once?
  • glwglw Posts: 8,255

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    [sigh]

    But didn’t red wall vote Tory on basis they would be getting special treatment? Wasn’t the Hartlepool win on basis, if we swap Labour MP for Tory we get the same favouritism as seats around us who have done that?

    You got voters disgusted by favouritism?

    Surely reality, the voters sealed contract on basis of favouritism?
    I broadly agree, but there is a difference between what we suspect goes on and knowing it goes on. We saw that with the expenses scandal. If the papers fill up over the next few days with stories about what was or was not dished out as a politcal favour I expect the voters to become angry even though in many cases they will have been complicit as you suggest.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
    I find it interesting how the fish rises to the hook.

    Quite clearly, some people see a country like Ukraine as a far off place of which we know little. It is entirely reasonable for the Germans to see them down the river for commercial advantage, in their view.

    Equally clearly selling the Germans down the river for commercial advantage would be wrong, terrible, nasty etc.

    Questions: what about Poland?

    - Can the Germans sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Germany to Poland?
    - If we allow the Russians to use a credit card, does the sale of Poland come under the Consumer Credit Act?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 6,160
    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Some problems:
    1. It wouldn't be us "starting" it, it would be the country invading its sovereign neighbour. Ukraine is a sovereign state, recognised by all the countries in the world including by Russia by treaty and by habit.
    2. Becoming involved in the conflict that the Nazis started in the 1930s was the right choice despite it being a "world war". A war isn't a good thing to seek out, but pretending that a war isn't already happening when it is, that's worse.
    3. In terms of deciding who runs a state... if there's a competition between the sovereign will of the people and a semi-mythical history of the founding of Rus deep in mediaeval times... I choose the sovereign will of the people. Any democrat would. Ukraine is not Russia for many reasons, not least because the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia.
    4. "Ideally they would leave it be" butters no parsnips. If you don't understand that bullies need to be deterred, then you probably understand nothing.
    5. The USSR is thankfully long dead. Even if there was an unbroken ideological continuity between then and now, why would you wish that on the Ukrainian people? Wouldn't you rather people progress past discredited systems of government?
    6. I don't know whether you're playing devil's advocate just because you don't like me (in which case, fine, I don't mind), or whether you really believe that Russia somehow has a greater claim on Ukraine than Ukrainians do. If it's the latter, I will retract what I said a few weeks ago when someone accused you of being a fascist. I don't like to level that accusation lightly, but you need to understand a little more about the fascism (yes, real actual literal fascism) that is now at the heart of the Russian state. Go look into it, and climb down from where you're currently playing. This is not a hill you really want to die on.
    You've got to hand it to HYUFD pig-headedness. He does generate a lot of passionate responses.
    I don't think my response was particularly passionate. I'm pretty calm about this because I know that HYUFD's opinions are, ultimately, inconsequential. My post is mostly for the benefit of others who might not know too much about the recent history between Russia and Ukraine and might think that HYUFD's post wasn't arrant nonsense. Not everything that HYUFD posts is stupid, so one could stumble accidentally into believing that there was something in it. But I assure you, with all the seriousness I can muster, the allowing Russia to take yet another chunk out of one of its neighbours is not a decision that the west will look back on as being smart.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
    I don't know what Bonzai Dog is.
    It was a Star Trek reference. What does God need with a starship?
    I thought it was a bit funny that the Duck Island and the trouser press were juxtaposed, and I imagined that the duck was ironing a tiny pair of duck pants. It didn't work, but I don't really mind because I enjoyed it.
    That’s because, as Peter corrected, it’s a Bonzo 🤦‍♀️
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486


    dixiedean said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Labour leads the Conservatives in the North West by 22 points - LAB 53% (+6), CON 30% (-8) LD 6% (-1) GRE 5% (+2) AP 6% (-) - Changes vs 2019 GE. https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1484193501109706758/photo/1

    LAB HOLD Bootle.
    I plugged the figures into flavible and get the following on current boundaries:

    Lab 57 (+16)
    CON 15 (-17)
    LD 2 (+1)
    Spkr 1 (-)

    Interestingly William Wragg is projected to narrowly hold Hazel Grove on a uniform swing but Graham Brady loses his seat by 4% to Labour.
    15 seats only in the NW? Do you have a link? I'd be interested to see which they are.
    The NW has some super safe Tory seats.
    https://flavible.co.uk/userprojection?tab=projection

    I put in the prediction for the North West

    The Tories would hold Bolton W, Blackpool N, Fylde, Crewe and Nantwich, Carlisle, Eddisbury, Rossendale and Darwen, Congleton, Ribble Valley, Penrith and the Border, Macclesfield, Wyre and Preston N, S Ribble and Tatton.
    Cheers.
    Some surprises in there. Bolton West, Blackpool N, Crewe and Carlisle have all been recently Labour.
    A wipeout in GM and Merseyside. But for Bolton W.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 13,809
    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Bad day for Trump. The USSC rule that Biden can hand over all the documents he wants to to the Jan 6 Committee, and a DA in Georgia is asking for a Grand Jury to be seated to look into Trump's demand that GA 'find' votes for him. Added to that, his former Spokeswoman does not appear to be holding back in the Committee on Trump's contacts in the days before ...

    Will it change the mind of any Trumpers though?
    No. But that is not the point. This is all inexorably heading towards criminality.
    Which requires a conviction from a jury including at least 3-4 Trumpers to make a difference.
    Gonna be hard to find 3-4 Trumpers in DC
    Hope you are right! From afar US justice seems slow, perverse and able to be bought by the rich.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614
    edited January 20
    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
    You can't, once on the Security Council you have a permanent veto and cannot be removed. Though I would probably add Japan, India and Germany (or the EU if it becomes a Federal superstate) in time too
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.

    Plenty of Thatcherites cheered Chris Patten losing Bath in 1992, though he was never as disloyal to a Tory leader as Wragg has been to Boris
    The loss of Patten was a big thing. Maybe YOU cheered.
    Being beaten by a liberal turned him into one.

    If only that were a general rule, the world would be a better place.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    The UK and the USA agreed specifically to protect Ukraine, from the 1994 treaty known as the Budapest Memorandum.

    https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
    So did France and the USSR, though in less explicit terms and individually.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 19,486
    IanB2 said:

    Omnium said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.

    Plenty of Thatcherites cheered Chris Patten losing Bath in 1992, though he was never as disloyal to a Tory leader as Wragg has been to Boris
    The loss of Patten was a big thing. Maybe YOU cheered.
    Being beaten by a liberal turned him into one.

    If only that were a general rule, the world would be a better place.
    Would still be vanishingly rare, mind.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,196
    Farooq said:

    TimT said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Some problems:
    1. It wouldn't be us "starting" it, it would be the country invading its sovereign neighbour. Ukraine is a sovereign state, recognised by all the countries in the world including by Russia by treaty and by habit.
    2. Becoming involved in the conflict that the Nazis started in the 1930s was the right choice despite it being a "world war". A war isn't a good thing to seek out, but pretending that a war isn't already happening when it is, that's worse.
    3. In terms of deciding who runs a state... if there's a competition between the sovereign will of the people and a semi-mythical history of the founding of Rus deep in mediaeval times... I choose the sovereign will of the people. Any democrat would. Ukraine is not Russia for many reasons, not least because the people of Ukraine do not want to be part of Russia.
    4. "Ideally they would leave it be" butters no parsnips. If you don't understand that bullies need to be deterred, then you probably understand nothing.
    5. The USSR is thankfully long dead. Even if there was an unbroken ideological continuity between then and now, why would you wish that on the Ukrainian people? Wouldn't you rather people progress past discredited systems of government?
    6. I don't know whether you're playing devil's advocate just because you don't like me (in which case, fine, I don't mind), or whether you really believe that Russia somehow has a greater claim on Ukraine than Ukrainians do. If it's the latter, I will retract what I said a few weeks ago when someone accused you of being a fascist. I don't like to level that accusation lightly, but you need to understand a little more about the fascism (yes, real actual literal fascism) that is now at the heart of the Russian state. Go look into it, and climb down from where you're currently playing. This is not a hill you really want to die on.
    You've got to hand it to HYUFD pig-headedness. He does generate a lot of passionate responses.
    I don't think my response was particularly passionate. I'm pretty calm about this because I know that HYUFD's opinions are, ultimately, inconsequential. My post is mostly for the benefit of others who might not know too much about the recent history between Russia and Ukraine and might think that HYUFD's post wasn't arrant nonsense. Not everything that HYUFD posts is stupid, so one could stumble accidentally into believing that there was something in it. But I assure you, with all the seriousness I can muster, the allowing Russia to take yet another chunk out of one of its neighbours is not a decision that the west will look back on as being smart.
    I did not mean to imply that HYUFD's comments are all stupid, rather his intransigence in ever admitting he is wrong pushes him into ever more untenable positions, like invading Scotland and Gibraltar.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    Another unintended consequence of Russian action - Ukraine will be the last country ever to give up nuclear weapons based on “guarantees”…..

    The sound you can hear in the middle distance is the hiss as tons of old nuclear fuel rods dissolve in acid as the first step of the er.... reprocessing.

    Civil plutonium is full of Plutonium 240. Bad for bangs. But that rapidly decays (7 year half life) to Uranium-236. Which means spent fuel which has been in the cooling ponds for a decade or 2 will yield weapons grade plutonium.

    Due to the embargo on fuel reprocessing round the world, nearly every nuclear power station around the world has a cooling pond full of old rods.

    It's pretty simply chemistry to get The Fun Stuff out.

    Oh dear.....
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    BBC North West
    @BBCNWT
    BREAKING:
    @UKLabour
    newest MP - former Tory
    @Christian4BuryS
    -backs up
    @William_Wragg
    allegations about rebel MPs being threatened by whips. He says he was told that plans for a new high school in his constituency could be scrapped unless he voted a certain way.

    https://twitter.com/BBCNWT/status/1484149149700341770

    Dynamite

    Jesus.

    That's appalling behaviour by the Government, if true.

    My view is that whips usually offer a mix of bribes and threats, but those are usually confined to the MP. The bribe of preferment, the threat of being ignored, the bribe of a photo op with the PM, the threat of him choosing to visit a neighbouring marginal seat over yours, etc.

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    I’m on the other side of the argument, that this has been going on for ever. I have really thought about it in relation to my own premiership. If my whips can’t do their job effectively I won’t be in long! I want at least three terms to stamp Jadeism on country.

    Of course blabbermouth Judas will say that, but can he prove it? Nope. Because truth is The money didn’t go to the school as it didn’t go to many schools and deserving cases. It doesn’t grow on trees you know, money. Tough decisions had to be made.

    The fact he had to make the office move and shares a space with brooms, mop and slop bucket, is yet another example that not everyone can have what they want all the time, at least not at the lower levels. But do we all cross the floor and bleet like spoiled sheep?

    No.

    He’s someone else’s problem now.
    How does that make it right? Children suffer to save Fat Bozo's arse?
    And Jade’s fat arse is the point of the post! 🙂
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 97,614

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
    I find it interesting how the fish rises to the hook.

    Quite clearly, some people see a country like Ukraine as a far off place of which we know little. It is entirely reasonable for the Germans to see them down the river for commercial advantage, in their view.

    Equally clearly selling the Germans down the river for commercial advantage would be wrong, terrible, nasty etc.

    Questions: what about Poland?

    - Can the Germans sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Germany to Poland?
    - If we allow the Russians to use a credit card, does the sale of Poland come under the Consumer Credit Act?
    Poland is in NATO, so no
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 38,014

    Another unintended consequence of Russian action - Ukraine will be the last country ever to give up nuclear weapons based on “guarantees”…..

    The sound you can hear in the middle distance is the hiss as tons of old nuclear fuel rods dissolve in acid as the first step of the er.... reprocessing.

    Civil plutonium is full of Plutonium 240. Bad for bangs. But that rapidly decays (7 year half life) to Uranium-236. Which means spent fuel which has been in the cooling ponds for a decade or 2 will yield weapons grade plutonium.

    Due to the embargo on fuel reprocessing round the world, nearly every nuclear power station around the world has a cooling pond full of old rods.

    It's pretty simply chemistry to get The Fun Stuff out.

    Oh dear.....
    Just as well there’s no decommissioned nuclear power plants in Ukraine then.

    Oh…
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 4,869
    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    [sigh]

    But didn’t red wall vote Tory on basis they would be getting special treatment? Wasn’t the Hartlepool win on basis, if we swap Labour MP for Tory we get the same favouritism as seats around us who have done that?

    You got voters disgusted by favouritism?

    Surely reality, the voters sealed contract on basis of favouritism?
    I broadly agree, but there is a difference between what we suspect goes on and knowing it goes on. We saw that with the expenses scandal. If the papers fill up over the next few days with stories about what was or was not dished out as a politcal favour I expect the voters to become angry even though in many cases they will have been complicit as you suggest.
    Faux anger, because knowingly complicit, is no real anger at all. Perhaps? Come next Election Day.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
    I don't know what Bonzai Dog is.
    It was a Star Trek reference. What does God need with a starship?
    I thought it was a bit funny that the Duck Island and the trouser press were juxtaposed, and I imagined that the duck was ironing a tiny pair of duck pants. It didn't work, but I don't really mind because I enjoyed it.
    It's actually Bonzo Dog.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWs8ER6PJo
    Aren't Bonzai dogs reserved for places like Chelsea and slebs like Jordan ?

    Good job we don't have many Banzai Dogs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    edited January 20
    Sandpit said:

    Another unintended consequence of Russian action - Ukraine will be the last country ever to give up nuclear weapons based on “guarantees”…..

    The sound you can hear in the middle distance is the hiss as tons of old nuclear fuel rods dissolve in acid as the first step of the er.... reprocessing.

    Civil plutonium is full of Plutonium 240. Bad for bangs. But that rapidly decays (7 year half life) to Uranium-236. Which means spent fuel which has been in the cooling ponds for a decade or 2 will yield weapons grade plutonium.

    Due to the embargo on fuel reprocessing round the world, nearly every nuclear power station around the world has a cooling pond full of old rods.

    It's pretty simply chemistry to get The Fun Stuff out.

    Oh dear.....
    Just as well there’s no decommissioned nuclear power plants in Ukraine then.

    Oh…
    Yes, that occurred to me as well.

    If the Russians try and borrow any more bits of Ukraine, would you blame them for tearing up the no nukes accord?

    EDIT: They have some live, running, ones as well. If my guesstimates are right, they have metric tons of plutonium in the cooling ponds. Oh and for special Joy Joy, the Russian designed reactors were designed to have lower burn up (less 240) so that they were usable for weapon production.

    FURTHER EDIT: Has anyone ever invaded a non-nuclear state that had nuclear power stations? I can't think of any....
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,404
    edited January 20
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    The UK and the USA agreed specifically to protect Ukraine, from the 1994 treaty known as the Budapest Memorandum.

    https://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/288298641/the-role-of-1994-nuclear-agreement-in-ukraines-current-state
    So did France and the USSR, though in less explicit terms and individually.
    Russia. Getting confused by Putin's expression of how much he likes what it was.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 20,324

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
    I find it interesting how the fish rises to the hook.

    Quite clearly, some people see a country like Ukraine as a far off place of which we know little. It is entirely reasonable for the Germans to see them down the river for commercial advantage, in their view.

    Equally clearly selling the Germans down the river for commercial advantage would be wrong, terrible, nasty etc.

    Questions: what about Poland?

    - Can the Germans sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Germany to Poland?
    - If we allow the Russians to use a credit card, does the sale of Poland come under the Consumer Credit Act?
    Not sure what you've been taking but you might want to ease off it for a while.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 44,589
    MattW said:

    Fishing said:

    Applicant said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    Wouldn't we have a veto on being removed?
    Yes and so would the French and the precedent is so blindingly obvious even Macron wouldn't be able to miss it.

    Also the Americans quite like a friendly face on that body.
    It's an interesting though experiment -

    - The Germans believe that gas supplies and jobs selling stuff to Russian are more important than protecting a nation they gave a formal guarantee to (the Ukrainian nuclear disarmament deal).
    - Why should we (the UK) regard gas supplies and UK jobs are *less* important than protecting a nation we gave a formal guarantee to.... Germany?
    It would be a classic cockup of the kind made by UK Governments.

    Such a deal to swap temporary gas - which will be almost vanishing from our energy mix quite soon, and of which we still have a fair amount of production, for a permanent or much longer term benefit for the counterparty.

    See Boris's proposal to sell off our national vaccine development / manufacturing centre for a small fraction of the price of the latest single order.

    Germany are in stuck because they have no plan B that will work in less than 5-15 years.

    The one thing Mutti Merkel obviously has better than BJ is departure timing - leave before your repution implodes.
    It is worth noting that the Germans are a lot less reliant on Russian energy imports now than they were when Merkel over as Chancellor.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    kle wrote, wrt expenses:

    I think it works as an argument as to why it has hurt and possibly permanently damaged Boris and the Tories, but it doesn't follow that it is necessarily terminal.

    Off the top of your head, what's the most famous expenses scandal claim/story?

    What do I think is the most famous one, or which one springs to my mind first?

    Duck Island and trouser press respectively.

    I don't see what difference it makes though - it was a question of why something cut through, and both stories have.
    What does duck need with trouser press?
    It’s a Bonzai Dog reference?
    I don't know what Bonzai Dog is.
    It was a Star Trek reference. What does God need with a starship?
    I thought it was a bit funny that the Duck Island and the trouser press were juxtaposed, and I imagined that the duck was ironing a tiny pair of duck pants. It didn't work, but I don't really mind because I enjoyed it.
    It's actually Bonzo Dog.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoWs8ER6PJo
    Aren't Bonzai dogs reserved for places like Chelsea and slebs like Jordan ?

    Good job we don't have many Banzai Dogs.
    Banzai and Bonzai are ever so slightly different?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661

    kle4 said:

    Roger said:

    MISTY said:

    MISTY said:

    Nigelb said:

    "...a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing..."
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/20/britain-russia-ukraine-border-dispute

    I seem to remember many of the same arguments were advanced for allowing the Germans to annexe the Sudetenland.
    The dark side of my brain keeps wanting to suggest a policy where we sell out German interests

    How about -

    - Putin gets some bits of Ukraine
    - We support Russia in the Security Council
    - The sell us LNG at 50% of the world price.
    - They sell gas to Germany at 200% of the world price.
    - We get a cut of the extra money.

    No involvement in war, cheap gas for Britain... what's not to like?
    Do you seriously think Putin would leave it like that?

    Do you seriously think he wouldn't want us to look the other way as he executed a few dissidents with Novichok on British soil next time?

    Yeah a few British citizens were maimed or killed as collateral damage, but we got some cheap gas right?

    We never do these deals with tyrants, ever. The point is, the EU and Biden are about to.
    Well, people don't want war. And the German government appears to regard the whole issue transactionally.

    So, I'm suggesting that we apply transactionality to Germany. Perhaps they will view things differently when *they* are being sold out.

    Think of what we could do together with Russia. Two nuclear powers. Two votes on the Security Council. We have the perfect position to control the sea lanes of Europe. Lots of money to be made.
    I wouldn't bet on how much longer the UK keeps its seat on the Security Council
    China and the USA are the only ones big and powerful enough to really justify such a place I'd have thought. So how to remove the others without getting rid of it for all?

    We will enjoy it while we can.
    I find it interesting how the fish rises to the hook.

    Quite clearly, some people see a country like Ukraine as a far off place of which we know little. It is entirely reasonable for the Germans to see them down the river for commercial advantage, in their view.

    Equally clearly selling the Germans down the river for commercial advantage would be wrong, terrible, nasty etc.

    Questions: what about Poland?

    - Can the Germans sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Poland to Russia?
    - Can we sell Germany to Poland?
    - If we allow the Russians to use a credit card, does the sale of Poland come under the Consumer Credit Act?
    Not sure what you've been taking but you might want to ease off it for a while.
    Just having some fun, trying to get people to define their terms as the philosophers say...

    What/who should we protect? Why? At what cost?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,076

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    [sigh]

    But didn’t red wall vote Tory on basis they would be getting special treatment? Wasn’t the Hartlepool win on basis, if we swap Labour MP for Tory we get the same favouritism as seats around us who have done that?

    You got voters disgusted by favouritism?

    Surely reality, the voters sealed contract on basis of favouritism?
    I broadly agree, but there is a difference between what we suspect goes on and knowing it goes on. We saw that with the expenses scandal. If the papers fill up over the next few days with stories about what was or was not dished out as a politcal favour I expect the voters to become angry even though in many cases they will have been complicit as you suggest.
    Faux anger, because knowingly complicit, is no real anger at all. Perhaps? Come next Election Day.
    It's generally a mistake to think that people's anger at being forced to acknowledge failings in which they are complicit is faux.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 39,709
    Economist: We ask what the crumbling premiership of Boris Johnson says about Britain. Mr Johnson has a formidable gift for making the political weather. He conjured an 87-seat working majority from nowhere, brought about Brexit and oversaw a world-class vaccine programme.

    However, his office’s drunken parties during a time of strict lockdown reveal not just a sense that rules are for other people, but also a lack of seriousness about the business of government. The prime minister’s attempts to wriggle out of having to take responsibility betray a disturbing willingness to deny the truth.

    These traits of Mr Johnson’s have tainted his government and his party. Post-Brexit Britain needs to overcome those traits if it is to thrive.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 26,661
    Polruan said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Threatening the constituents via "we'll pull funding for this new school", though, is absolutely appalling behaviour, if true.

    Yes, and the point made up-thread about MPs thinking "that's how it has always been done" will not wash with the public if more examples come to light.

    If you hate Boris now think how much more you will hate him if your town didn't get a new school or hospital because your MP was insufficiently loyal to the PM.
    [sigh]

    But didn’t red wall vote Tory on basis they would be getting special treatment? Wasn’t the Hartlepool win on basis, if we swap Labour MP for Tory we get the same favouritism as seats around us who have done that?

    You got voters disgusted by favouritism?

    Surely reality, the voters sealed contract on basis of favouritism?
    I broadly agree, but there is a difference between what we suspect goes on and knowing it goes on. We saw that with the expenses scandal. If the papers fill up over the next few days with stories about what was or was not dished out as a politcal favour I expect the voters to become angry even though in many cases they will have been complicit as you suggest.
    Faux anger, because knowingly complicit, is no real anger at all. Perhaps? Come next Election Day.
    It's generally a mistake to think that people's anger at being forced to acknowledge failings in which they are complicit is faux.
    Yes. I would also suggest it is a big mistake to think that because something is generally known in political circles, that it is generally known to the wider public.

    I was extremely surprised at the time of the Fuel Strike to discover how few people knew that the price at the pump of petrol is 75%+ tax and that the oil companies take a small portion of the remainder. Because I worked in the oil industry, I *ass*umed that everyone knew that.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 1,360
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    If anyone thinks that selling a friendly country out to be annexed by an expansionist dictatorship is in itself cost free, I have a book on twentieth century history you could borrow.

    As opposed to starting World War 3 with Russia over a country not even in NATO with far right elements in it stirring up trouble?

    We have obligations to defend NATO members in Europe from Russia, not beyond
    It's in our own interests to constrain Russia's aggressive expansion. Dictatorships are really bad for business and they tend to create waves of refugees that could further destabilise our region.

    Plus, there's the minor point that it's the Right Thing To Do. But I don't think that's an argument that's likely to connect with you, so feel free to focus just on paragraph 1.
    Not if it means WW3.

    Ukraine is an ex part of the USSR and Putin's Russia sees them as Nationalist separatists.

    Yes ideally Russia would leave it be but Ukraine is not a NATO member so therefore we are not going to start WW3 to defend it
    Nationalist separatists should always be destroyed, say dictators Putin and HYUFD.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,076
    This thread has been forced to cease due to (alleged) threats to withdraw crucial funding from its constituency.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    edited January 20
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    Gladdens my heart to see Tories overjoyed at Conservative MP's potentially losing their seats.
    As I said. Nervous breakdown.

    Plenty of Thatcherites cheered Chris Patten losing Bath in 1992, though he was never as disloyal to a Tory leader as Wragg has been to Boris
    Loyal subordinates are supposed to connive in blackmail by ignoring it ?

    You’re having a really bad week.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 38,385
    .

    tlg86 said:



    In the 2002 BBC drama The Project (which was about New Labour), the chief whip threatens the Naomi Harris in precisely this way. I have no idea if this was based on any suggestion that this went on with New Labour, but it didn’t strike me as being an outlandish suggestion.

    I can comment from experience. I threatened to revolt fairly early on (I forget the issue now - something on benefits, I think) and my whip (Graham Allen) told me that if I did, it would be unlikely that Broxtowe Labour would get much assistance from the national party at the next election. I laughed and told him that we'd had the square root of fuck all in 1997 (as it was supposed to be a safe Tory seat), so we'd live without the help, and by the way threats made me more likely to revolt, not less.

    I was called in next day to the Chief Whip (Hilary Armstrong), who apologised - said Graham had got "a bit carried away" and although the whips hoped I would not revolt it was a matter for me.

    I suspect that Hilary was adjusting tactics in view of my response rather than making a great stand on principle. But in fairness there was never the slightest suggestion that whatever I did would affect Government funding.

    I abstained (wow how brave), and Graham said sadly as I sat unmoving in the Chamber that I was blowing my chance at promotion. Oh well.

    I think that threats of lack of party support or promotion are within the normal range of whipping activity, but doing anything relating to Government funding is not.
    Thanks, Nick.
    Good to have some reality injected into a theoretical discussion.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 40,543

    This thread has been blackmailed

This discussion has been closed.