Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
Yes, I would have thought the worst case scenario for Putin is another Afghanistan: an expensive multi-year insurgent war with well supplied Ukrainian militias that keep sending Russians home in body bags while the Rouble plummets and Nordstream 2 gets put on indefinite ice. Not NATO sending in conventional forces, which would be overreach and stupid.
I think that is the Western strategy. Convince Putin of an Afghanistan plus massive sanctions and then provide him with some kind of facesave. The latter is essential.
The obvious facesave is to open NordStream 2. Can't think what else there would be and whether it would be enough for Putin.
Doesn't make the future much better for Europe or Ukraine either.
Nordstream 2 was designed explicitly so that Putin could fuck over Eastern Europe without disrupting supplies to Germany etc. So Russia could play "Core Europe" off against the periphery......
Yes. I hoped it would be stopped, and there was movement in that direction before the build-up around Ukraine.
However, I note the language around it is along the lines of, "if you invade Ukraine we'll have to cancel NordStream 2", which opens up the possibility of a trade on opening it in return for peace this day.
Starmer promises a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and no tax cuts for banks
The first is completely, off-the-wall barmy (when did a windfall or any other tax reduce prices???), but probably good if cynical politics, as is the latter.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
He's an old man like me. You just wait until you reach the late fifties milestones and you might look a little portly too.
He's 59. He's always looked younger than his years, until now. Suddenly he looks much nearer his age. It is a dangerous time to put on the chunk (and I speak ruefully as a man right now on a pretty fierce diet)
If we fail to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine we will inevitably have further Russian aggression elsewhere and risk being seen as unwilling to counter that aggression.
20,000 NATO troops in Ukraine tomorrow, and a clear commitment to provide reinforcements if necessary, would prevent a Russian attack on Ukraine. Putin isn't about to fire missiles at American soldiers.
You're literally betting your life on that conjecture.
We'd do better to hold the NATO line, regroup, reinforce all other lines of defence (cyber, infowars), flush out the dirty money from London, and the fellow travellers from Europe. This is about containment and patience, not idiocy.
And rejoin the EU, and eliminate all Brexiteers from our politics, as they helped to build this shit.
Ah I see the lunatic fringe is still alive and well.
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
Sure. But that was a pretty fucking poor show, from both sides.
It's not like we lack serious issues to discuss. To make it worse, all the jokes and barbs misfired, on all sides. Boris floundered, Starmer made some weird Thelma and Louise reference. It was like two 15 year olds making a poor attempt at their own PMQs. Dreadful
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
This from the plonker who thinks we all care about how many olives he's eaten in the last three days?
I was unaware I was broadcasting my insights to the entire nation on live television, from the Mother of Parliaments, rather than just making random anonymous comments on an obscure blog which you are free to scroll past and ignore
Tobias Ellwood on Sky just announced he is submitting his letter to the 1922 today
It might not be about parties and lies. Elwood was on R4 PM last night highly critical of Johnson's Ukrainian escapade.
He wants British and NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine today!
Supplies yes, boots no.
Certainly not unless a NATO member country is invaded which Ukraine is not
No Ellwood, unless I am very much mistaken, wants NATO soldiers defending Ukraine in Ukraine as a precursor to defending Europe from the combined forces of an Eastward looking Putin.
You are peddling Johnson's proposal. I don't know who is right, but Ellwood is of the opinion strength is the only game Putin understands. Ellwood was very compelling, down to his understanding of Putin's personal hatred of the fall of the Soviet Union because to make ends meet he was driving taxis in St Petersburg, and sees the recovery of Soviet satellite states as a mission to right that prrsonal wrong.
His idea that there might be any possibility of NATO dispatching a brigade to Ukraine didn't demonstrate much understanding of our side, whatever his understanding of Putin.
It's an appalling idea whether it would work on official Russian policy or not. One of the nightmare scenarios of the Cold War was a nuclear war escalating from an accidental exchange of gunfire across the NATO/Warsaw Pact border. Dropping NATO troops into what is already a warzone would be reckless in the extreme.
Quite concerning to see something so reckless coming from the chair of the parliamentary committee.
And the alternative - letting Putin steal whatever bits of other countries he fancies - is less "reckless"?
That is a rather dubious false dichotomy. The choice is not between deployment of British troops in the Ukraine and Putin annexing places.
There are plenty of options in the middle, not least the current government policy.
Oh, come off it. At some point, if Putin is to stop, he will have to be stopped.
The deployment of British troops wouldn't stop it. More likely to precipitate it.
Negotiations to de-escalate and demilitarise the border on both sides are what is needed.
It also wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan where we enjoyed total air supremacy and could just tool around taking random potshots at anybody with a beard while keeping an eye out for IEDs.
This would be full on mechanised warfare (until it went nuclear) with massive amounts of long range fires. The 6-7,000 troops that the UK could assemble would take 100s of KIAs per day. It would be completely politically unsustainable for any British government for more than a day or two. Putin knows this only too well so another way to talk him down is going to have to be found.
Yes, I would have thought the worst case scenario for Putin is another Afghanistan: an expensive multi-year insurgent war with well supplied Ukrainian militias that keep sending Russians home in body bags while the Rouble plummets and Nordstream 2 gets put on indefinite ice. Not NATO sending in conventional forces, which would be overreach and stupid.
I think that is the Western strategy. Convince Putin of an Afghanistan plus massive sanctions and then provide him with some kind of facesave. The latter is essential.
The obvious facesave is to open NordStream 2. Can't think what else there would be and whether it would be enough for Putin.
Doesn't make the future much better for Europe or Ukraine either.
Nordstream 2 was designed explicitly so that Putin could fuck over Eastern Europe without disrupting supplies to Germany etc. So Russia could play "Core Europe" off against the periphery......
Yes. I hoped it would be stopped, and there was movement in that direction before the build-up around Ukraine.
However, I note the language around it is along the lines of, "if you invade Ukraine we'll have to cancel NordStream 2", which opens up the possibility of a trade on opening it in return for peace this day.
Then Putin will move to playing games with gas prices to Eastern Europe, while saying to the Germans - "It would be a pity if something happened to the price of the nice cheap gas I am selling you".
The advantage of that, for him, is that without the overt military stuff, lots of people will be writing sagely articles about how Russia has the right to dominate Eastern Europe and it is all a commercial dispute anyway....
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
He's an old man like me. You just wait until you reach the late fifties milestones and you might look a little portly too.
He's 59. He's always looked younger than his years, until now. Suddenly he looks much nearer his age. It is a dangerous time to put on the chunk (and I speak ruefully as a man right now on a pretty fierce diet)
He's 59? That genuinely shocks me, I kind of assumed he was lowish 50s.
Guess what the latest threat is to Tory backbenchers thinking of toppling the PM? That @BorisJohnson would 'do a Corbyn': fight a leadership ballot and win with the backing of party members.
I thought this was just a hyufd fantasy, apparently not
I didn't think that was possible under Tory rules. The incumbent faces a VONC, if they lose that is it. They are not allowed to be a candidate in the new election. If they win they are, in theory, safe for a year but May showed that is not necessarily the case in practice.
It also doesn't work in practice, since Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs, and if he'd already been rejected by the MPs his path through the ballot would likely see him lose. The further you get away from Parliament the less support he has.
Not true, only last month 66% of Tory members still wanted Boris to stay PM and Tory leader with Opinium. That was far higher than the 28% of the public and even the 49% of 2019 Tory voters who wanted Boris to stay
My point was that "Tory members are already keener to see him go now than are the MPs", and that is demonstrably true. It is also true that Tory voters are keener to see him go than are Tory members and that all voters are keener than are Tory voters.
In the scenario where he had already been rejected by the MPs, he would be toast. So it's a bluff.
Many thought the same when Corbyn lost a VONC amongst Labour MPs in 2016.
Yet Labour members re elected him
Good that you keep equating Johnson with Corbyn. Dumb and Dumber. thankfully Labour got rid of Dumber. It is time Conservatives got rid of Dumb.
Tory MP asking the PM to override the Manchester Mayor. OK, he wants to make his point, but it doesn’t look good if you are announcing a Levelling Up agenda including devolving powers.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
He's an old man like me. You just wait until you reach the late fifties milestones and you might look a little portly too.
He's 59. He's always looked younger than his years, until now. Suddenly he looks much nearer his age. It is a dangerous time to put on the chunk (and I speak ruefully as a man right now on a pretty fierce diet)
He's 59? That genuinely shocks me, I kind of assumed he was lowish 50s.
Yes, he is well preserved. Or he was until recently. Needs to hit the gym and get better suits and shirts. They are not flattering him
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
He's an old man like me. You just wait until you reach the late fifties milestones and you might look a little portly too.
He's 59. He's always looked younger than his years, until now. Suddenly he looks much nearer his age. It is a dangerous time to put on the chunk (and I speak ruefully as a man right now on a pretty fierce diet)
He's 59? That genuinely shocks me, I kind of assumed he was lowish 50s.
Good point from Boris, no Labour government has left office with unemployment lower than when it came in
Such diversionary tactics cannot last forever though. Brown was still trying the 'last Tory government' excuse 13 years into a Labour government but it no longer resonated.
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
But there's good funny infantile, and terrible, cringey infantile
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Every time Johnson says anything for the rest of his life I want the response to be something like, "How do I know you're not lying again?"
He has to be made an example for everyone else in public life, otherwise he will be the proof that we tolerate any amount of lying.
The reason Bell's 'Do you think I'm a fool?' question worked so well, in my opinion, is that by his actions we know with a high degree of certainty that the answer was yes. Not that Boris will have put his mind to the question about Bell specifically, but about people who did trouble themselves to follow rules. Whereas possibly more relevant and cutting questions Boris could evade better will not have stuck as well as a simple, personal question, where he has to say no, but we can see the answer is otherwise.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Yes, he hasn't accepted he's got a fatter neck
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
Don't disagree with Cyclefree's header, it's a good catalogue of government failings. But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
I worry about that too but not quite as much as I used to - because I'm more and more thinking Starmer has it covered.
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I don't believe the respondents, I think it is an example where people reply with what they think they should be saying rather than what they believe, social desirability bias. It's loud, brash and partisan, and we know that we should say that is wrong.
Take the 67% saying there is 'too much party political point scoring', that's a load of nonsense. People love political point scoring, we reward our politicians for it, and we tend not to reward those who don't create a spectacle or who genuinely try to cooperate with their opponents.
If we didn't like partisan theatrics we would not have gotten into a situation where they are rewarded, or face no consequences, for indulging in it.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Yes, he hasn't accepted he's got a fatter neck
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
I reckon Starmer is in that awkward situation (which I recognise) of having 14 shirts & 7 suits for work which are now slightly too small for him but he's said to himself 'I'll lose the weight' rather than pop for a new wardrobe.
Do party leaders get a clothes allowance? Might be a bit embarrassing to ask for a payout cos you've become a bit of a fatty.
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Yes, he hasn't accepted he's got a fatter neck
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
Here I sit at 55 in my 28 waist jeans. Buff.
That is bloody impressive. There were fatter British men in Japanese POW camps. Well done
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I agree it's not what the public want. (Side note: surprised 'have seen some PMQs' is as high as 54%, I'd have guessed lower. I suppose for a lot of the people saying yes it will be "evening news had a clip from it".) But I suspect that for a fair number of MPs it *is* part of what they want out of it -- otherwise there'd be a bigger push to change it, and MPs have leverage to push that change, where the wider public don't.
@dixiedean - further to your comments on the Canadian men's football team, I read a piece on them in World Soccer and I hadn't realised that they have an English manager:
What a lot of twaddle from both of them. Tedious, infantile shite
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Are you new to PMQs?
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I don't believe the respondents, I think it is an example where people reply with what they think they should be saying rather than what they believe, social desirability bias. It's loud, brash and partisan, and we know that we should say that is wrong.
Take the 67% saying there is 'too much party political point scoring', that's a load of nonsense. People love political point scoring, we reward our politicians for it, and we tend not to reward those who don't create a spectacle or who genuinely try to cooperate with their opponents.
If we didn't like partisan theatrics we would not have gotten into a situation where they are rewarded, or face no consequences, for indulging in it.
I'm not sure that's exactly the case. My theory is as follows: Politician A behaves constructively towards politician B: public awards politician A 3 points and and politician B 1 point. Politician A engages in partisan theatrics towards politician B: public awards politician A 1 point and politician B -2 points. I think the public like to see positive politics, but the game theory points politicians towards behaving negatively. In a two party system, you win not by being liked but by being liked more than your principal opponent.
Every time Johnson says anything for the rest of his life I want the response to be something like, "How do I know you're not lying again?"
He has to be made an example for everyone else in public life, otherwise he will be the proof that we tolerate any amount of lying.
The reason Bell's 'Do you think I'm a fool?' question worked so well, in my opinion, is that by his actions we know with a high degree of certainty that the answer was yes. Not that Boris will have put his mind to the question about Bell specifically, but about people who did trouble themselves to follow rules. Whereas possibly more relevant and cutting questions Boris could evade better will not have stuck as well as a simple, personal question, where he has to say no, but we can see the answer is otherwise.
The "Fool" angle will hopefully do great damage. It works multiple ways. Johnson thinks people are fools for following the Covid rules - the specific Aaron Bell point. Then in general he takes the electorate for fools. All of this leading to the big one - as any sort of floating voter you ARE a fool if you vote for him again.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it bizarre the Tories are on the side of tax increases whilst Labour are positioning themselves against.
During a cost of living crisis, I can see which side will be more palatable to voters. So yes - Johnson survived another PMQs, but has to stand by some pretty dire policy decisions whilst repeating falsehoods about Saville, jobs and parties.
And the thing is, the infantile stuff is what they, and the public, want from PMQs. If it weren't, they would have changed it by now. It's why Bercow was talking bollocks whenever he went on a tangent about people watching not liking what they saw etc.
I agree it's not what the public want. (Side note: surprised 'have seen some PMQs' is as high as 54%, I'd have guessed lower. I suppose for a lot of the people saying yes it will be "evening news had a clip from it".) But I suspect that for a fair number of MPs it *is* part of what they want out of it -- otherwise there'd be a bigger push to change it, and MPs have leverage to push that change, where the wider public don't.
I think having something like PMQs is good for democracy. Compare the US, where the President doesn’t face this sort of hostile questioning. If Trump had had to answer questions once a week, he would’ve fallen from grace sooner.
@dixiedean - further to your comments on the Canadian men's football team, I read a piece on them in World Soccer and I hadn't realised that they have an English manager:
Apparently, Starmer's fucked because he's a fat bastard with ill-fitting suits who let Jimmy Savile off.
Have I got that right?
Nope SKS is fucked because he's got ill fitting suits and happened to doing a job when an underling decided there wasn't evidence to prosecute Jimmy Saville.
It's the desperate excuse of someone who doesn't want to be held responsible for the failure of a work culture Bozo created and approved of.
Neither Starmer nor Johnson gets close to 5' 10". Neither seems to be that interested in taking exercise. Both are clearly overweight. Johnson also likes to party. But they are both wealthy, so the chances are they will both live to a decent age.
No PMQ withdrawal of support then. Quite a lot of obsequious plant questions. Not sure whether I should be ordering that hair shirt for June, but still hopeful he will be out by then.
He is here for the duration. May well win again in 2023/4 as well.
I find it hard to believe he will last until 2024, but the flatness of today's PMQs does make me wonder if the oomph has finally gone out of the Partygate scandal. Everyone is bored of it (even some on the Left)
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
Starmer looks quite fat, suddenly. Or maybe I only just noticed
Compared to the svelte Johnson we all look fat!
Starmer has suddenly got that unfortunate too-tight white-shirt with a red-neck-and-face bulging-out-the-top look
Roger has recently drawn attention to Starmer's ill-fitting suits.
Both Starmer and Johnson would be better off with well-cut double breasted suits to hide their paunches. Starmer probably would look quite good in one.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
Yes, he hasn't accepted he's got a fatter neck
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
"survived"? Well of course he did. He still looked like a shifty blustering liar though. Whether the Tory Party will "survive" is another matter. That should weigh on your conscience, but you have become a prisoner of an incompetent and dishonest oaf who has caused you to contract a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome.
@dixiedean - further to your comments on the Canadian men's football team, I read a piece on them in World Soccer and I hadn't realised that they have an English manager:
Comments
Hammer away.
However, I note the language around it is along the lines of, "if you invade Ukraine we'll have to cancel NordStream 2", which opens up the possibility of a trade on opening it in return for peace this day.
He's the classic supply teacher with no control
You'll just keep threatening and threatening to do something, but never dare actually do it.
Had most Tory MPs voted for my MP Dame Eleanor Laing in 2019, who came 3rd, she would probably be Speaker now
Imagine if you just first tuned into to see the biggest spectacle of weekly British politics. THIS
Top tip to both: cutaway collars exacerbate the prob.
This is not true. There are 600,000 fewer. The @StatsRegulation literally wrote to Downing Street about this false claim yesterday.
The PM *must* correct the official record.
https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/1488849902973198336
It's not like we lack serious issues to discuss. To make it worse, all the jokes and barbs misfired, on all sides. Boris floundered, Starmer made some weird Thelma and Louise reference. It was like two 15 year olds making a poor attempt at their own PMQs. Dreadful
You really are quite a strange person
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1488851595727101952
Apart from the legendarily modest ones of course.
Anyway… For how long can Johnson go on just ducking every Partygate question?
The advantage of that, for him, is that without the overt military stuff, lots of people will be writing sagely articles about how Russia has the right to dominate Eastern Europe and it is all a commercial dispute anyway....
I thought you were interested in Politics
He has to be made an example for everyone else in public life, otherwise he will be the proof that we tolerate any amount of lying.
But unless people are prepared to vote this government out, it won't change.
And I worry that the Conservatives are very good at finding issues which enrage otherwise hostile voters and stop them from voting Labour... like trans rights or border crossings or human rights or woke or free speech etc.
Anything important missed?
This was the latter
He’s got to be careful on the tax burden stuff though. It does allow Boris cheap and easy hits on the “I’m doing it for the NHS” line.
SKS also hasn't updated his shirt collection recently as well, so he could probably do with a 1/4 - 1/2 increase in collar size.
It's like a 42 year old man convinced he can still fit 32 waist jeans, the result can be mortifying
How do you intend to vote at the next GE I havent got a clue except it wont be Lab under Starmer?
Take the 67% saying there is 'too much party political point scoring', that's a load of nonsense. People love political point scoring, we reward our politicians for it, and we tend not to reward those who don't create a spectacle or who genuinely try to cooperate with their opponents.
If we didn't like partisan theatrics we would not have gotten into a situation where they are rewarded, or face no consequences, for indulging in it.
Buff.
Shoot them down, Lynton Crosby!
Do party leaders get a clothes allowance? Might be a bit embarrassing to ask for a payout cos you've become a bit of a fatty.
I'm fortunate I live in a Lab/LD marginal.
Apparently, Starmer's fucked because he's a fat bastard with ill-fitting suits who let Jimmy Savile off.
Have I got that right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herdman
That's an interesting journey. One to watch for the future.
My theory is as follows:
Politician A behaves constructively towards politician B: public awards politician A 3 points and and politician B 1 point.
Politician A engages in partisan theatrics towards politician B: public awards politician A 1 point and politician B -2 points.
I think the public like to see positive politics, but the game theory points politicians towards behaving negatively.
In a two party system, you win not by being liked but by being liked more than your principal opponent.
It was a boring, childish nil-nil draw, and Starmer has got a fat neck. C'est tout
During a cost of living crisis, I can see which side will be more palatable to voters. So yes - Johnson survived another PMQs, but has to stand by some pretty dire policy decisions whilst repeating falsehoods about Saville, jobs and parties.
It's the desperate excuse of someone who doesn't want to be held responsible for the failure of a work culture Bozo created and approved of.
Of course the Met Police might revive it, but they might not.
And all this will not repair the enormous damage done to Boris and his government
BTW, are you around 5ft tall?