Putin’s stage managed “live broadcast Security Council consultation” followed by “signing ceremony” having a bit of a mare with watches:
Putin convened an unscheduled meeting with his Security Council in Moscow on Monday. The meeting was broadcast at 5 pm. But what time was it really held? Let's look at some participants' watches. Sergei Shoigu & Sergei Lavrov prep at 11:45. #OSINT #UkraineRussia #Russia #Ukraine
Romans yacht, Eclipse, was in the harbour in Philipsburg, Sint Maarten a couple of days ago. Last time I saw it was in Antibes. It is very ridiculously big.
If neither Le Pen or Zemmour get the backers needed to get on the ballot paper then that gives Pecresse an excellent chance. The right would then largely be united behind her and she could even win the first round which would give her big momentum for the runoff
French polls do seem rather more accurate than ours*, and Pecresse is currently languishing in 4th place on barely half of Macrons polling. File it under "not going to happen".
She would simply need to finish second in front of the extreme right. By and large the extreme right would unite behind her; she has made gestures to them, even briefly alluding to Zemmour's "Great Replacement" (conspiracy) theory (before walking it back, saying it was a conspiracy theory after all). And obviously she is not the pro-European, cosmopolitan, and un-Russophile Macron. Problem is nobody on the left would follow. She is this election's liberal bogeyman to them, the role Macron was cast in last time, and bogey enough to make it worth supporting Macron whose liberalism has been abortive at home and abandoned abroad. (Meaning economic liberal, of course.)
Polling shows not much enthusiasm for Melenchon voters to turn out for Macron in a runoff and he is the leading leftwing candidate. If Pecresse got second place and to the runoff, she is basically tied with Zemmour and Le Pen behind Macron, then if she gets Le Pen voters to turn out for her with more enthusiasm than Melenchon voters turn out for Macron then she wins the runoff and the Presidency
The same happened with Mélenchon supporters last time when they faced the option of Le Pen, who can reach into far more of his voters than Pécresse. (Le Pen is seen as a workers' candidate - Pécresse was born in Neuilly, privately educated and became deputy for, erm, Versailles.)
Mélenchon now has only around half his numbers from 2017, primarily because the Greens have a candidate. Surely his remaining supporters are disproportionately more hostile to other parties, but they also matter less as a bloc. Macron will readily fish in the pools of green, socialist and Taubira voters.
Even all the combined green, socialist and Taubira voters is still nowhere near 50% when added to Macron's first round vote. He would need to get almost all Melenchon first round voters to turn out for him again in the runoff if Pecresse got to the runoff and got most Le Pen and Zemmour and Dupont Aignan voters to turn out for her
If neither Le Pen or Zemmour get the backers needed to get on the ballot paper then that gives Pecresse an excellent chance. The right would then largely be united behind her and she could even win the first round which would give her big momentum for the runoff
French polls do seem rather more accurate than ours*, and Pecresse is currently languishing in 4th place on barely half of Macrons polling. File it under "not going to happen".
She would simply need to finish second in front of the extreme right. By and large the extreme right would unite behind her; she has made gestures to them, even briefly alluding to Zemmour's "Great Replacement" (conspiracy) theory (before walking it back, saying it was a conspiracy theory after all). And obviously she is not the pro-European, cosmopolitan, and un-Russophile Macron. Problem is nobody on the left would follow. She is this election's liberal bogeyman to them, the role Macron was cast in last time, and bogey enough to make it worth supporting Macron whose liberalism has been abortive at home and abandoned abroad. (Meaning economic liberal, of course.)
Polling shows not much enthusiasm for Melenchon voters to turn out for Macron in a runoff and he is the leading leftwing candidate. If Pecresse got second place and to the runoff, she is basically tied with Zemmour and Le Pen behind Macron, then if she gets Le Pen voters to turn out for her with more enthusiasm than Melenchon voters turn out for Macron then she wins the runoff and the Presidency
The same happened with Mélenchon supporters last time when they faced the option of Le Pen, who can reach into far more of his voters than Pécresse. (Le Pen is seen as a workers' candidate - Pécresse was born in Neuilly, privately educated and became deputy for, erm, Versailles.)
Mélenchon now has only around half his numbers from 2017, primarily because the Greens have a candidate. Surely his remaining supporters are disproportionately more hostile to other parties, but they also matter less as a bloc. Macron will readily fish in the pools of green, socialist and Taubira voters.
Even all the combined green, socialist and Taubira voters is still nowhere near 50% when added to Macron's first round vote. He would need to get almost all Melenchon first round voters to turn out for him again in the runoff if Pecresse got to the runoff and got most Le Pen and Zemmour and Dupont Aignan voters to turn out for her
Look, it's simple. 40% of voters are on the right or extreme right. Macron has around 25% and the rest are on the left. Macron won the vast majority of them last time with no endorsement from a much-stronger Mélenchon and while facing a opponent who had a base in workers rather than France's answer to Margaret Thatcher. He will do it again this time. I think it is tendentious to go on about some Mélenchon voters and not to acknowledge that Pécresse will struggle to motivate some Le Pen voters.
The Pentagon is moving up to eight F-35 fighter jets ... to Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Poland to shore up support for NATO allies
NY Times
What is that? One per country?
It's the start. Give Biden some time.
With Trump anything to the east of the Rhine would be heading to Russia.
Thankfully Biden is not Trump.
It was not meant as a serious comment and, overall, I think the West's response and the Biden's role in securing it have been pretty impressive.
But at the same time, what sort of signal is it to Putin? Up to eight? What does that mean? Three? No doubt it has Putin shaking in his boots.
Cutting off Nord may help him think. His bestie mates having their assets frozen may help him think further.
But, as a PBer pointed out earlier, the best bet is to stop the daughters of his very rich best mates using London as a playground of high end flats and super top retail and amazing restaurants.
Freeze the whole damn lot of it.
imho the best way to halt Putin is to stop his non political (but key) mates having a fucking party all over europe. Freeze them out, block them. stop them. No visas. No movement. No landing rights. No access to their money. No party in Cannes for the daughter who wants to be a film star.
Total and massive freeze.
Nothing Russian moves anywhere in Europe or the US. Full stop. Done and over.
And we start with EUFA football. The final is over. Done. Not happening.
We are now at war. And Putin must pay the price.
Total and utter focus now needed by the West. We have wasted years pretending this wasn't coming.
If neither Le Pen or Zemmour get the backers needed to get on the ballot paper then that gives Pecresse an excellent chance. The right would then largely be united behind her and she could even win the first round which would give her big momentum for the runoff
French polls do seem rather more accurate than ours*, and Pecresse is currently languishing in 4th place on barely half of Macrons polling. File it under "not going to happen".
She would simply need to finish second in front of the extreme right. By and large the extreme right would unite behind her; she has made gestures to them, even briefly alluding to Zemmour's "Great Replacement" (conspiracy) theory (before walking it back, saying it was a conspiracy theory after all). And obviously she is not the pro-European, cosmopolitan, and un-Russophile Macron. Problem is nobody on the left would follow. She is this election's liberal bogeyman to them, the role Macron was cast in last time, and bogey enough to make it worth supporting Macron whose liberalism has been abortive at home and abandoned abroad. (Meaning economic liberal, of course.)
Polling shows not much enthusiasm for Melenchon voters to turn out for Macron in a runoff and he is the leading leftwing candidate. If Pecresse got second place and to the runoff, she is basically tied with Zemmour and Le Pen behind Macron, then if she gets Le Pen voters to turn out for her with more enthusiasm than Melenchon voters turn out for Macron then she wins the runoff and the Presidency
The same happened with Mélenchon supporters last time when they faced the option of Le Pen, who can reach into far more of his voters than Pécresse. (Le Pen is seen as a workers' candidate - Pécresse was born in Neuilly, privately educated and became deputy for, erm, Versailles.)
Mélenchon now has only around half his numbers from 2017, primarily because the Greens have a candidate. Surely his remaining supporters are disproportionately more hostile to other parties, but they also matter less as a bloc. Macron will readily fish in the pools of green, socialist and Taubira voters.
Even all the combined green, socialist and Taubira voters is still nowhere near 50% when added to Macron's first round vote. He would need to get almost all Melenchon first round voters to turn out for him again in the runoff if Pecresse got to the runoff and got most Le Pen and Zemmour and Dupont Aignan voters to turn out for her
Look, it's simple. 40% of voters are on the right or extreme right. Macron has around 25% and the rest are on the left. Macron won the vast majority of them last time with no endorsement from a much-stronger Mélenchon and while facing a opponent who had a base in workers rather than France's answer to Margaret Thatcher. He will do it again this time. I think it is tendentious to go on about some Mélenchon voters and not to acknowledge that Pécresse will struggle to motivate some Le Pen voters.
On the latest poll from OpinionWay, the combined Pecresse, Le Pen, Zemmour and Dupont Aignan vote is 47% not 40%.
Add in Lasselle, ex MoDem and you get to 49% for the centre right and right combined.
If neither Le Pen or Zemmour get the backers needed to get on the ballot paper then that gives Pecresse an excellent chance. The right would then largely be united behind her and she could even win the first round which would give her big momentum for the runoff
French polls do seem rather more accurate than ours*, and Pecresse is currently languishing in 4th place on barely half of Macrons polling. File it under "not going to happen".
She would simply need to finish second in front of the extreme right. By and large the extreme right would unite behind her; she has made gestures to them, even briefly alluding to Zemmour's "Great Replacement" (conspiracy) theory (before walking it back, saying it was a conspiracy theory after all). And obviously she is not the pro-European, cosmopolitan, and un-Russophile Macron. Problem is nobody on the left would follow. She is this election's liberal bogeyman to them, the role Macron was cast in last time, and bogey enough to make it worth supporting Macron whose liberalism has been abortive at home and abandoned abroad. (Meaning economic liberal, of course.)
Polling shows not much enthusiasm for Melenchon voters to turn out for Macron in a runoff and he is the leading leftwing candidate. If Pecresse got second place and to the runoff, she is basically tied with Zemmour and Le Pen behind Macron, then if she gets Le Pen voters to turn out for her with more enthusiasm than Melenchon voters turn out for Macron then she wins the runoff and the Presidency
The same happened with Mélenchon supporters last time when they faced the option of Le Pen, who can reach into far more of his voters than Pécresse. (Le Pen is seen as a workers' candidate - Pécresse was born in Neuilly, privately educated and became deputy for, erm, Versailles.)
Mélenchon now has only around half his numbers from 2017, primarily because the Greens have a candidate. Surely his remaining supporters are disproportionately more hostile to other parties, but they also matter less as a bloc. Macron will readily fish in the pools of green, socialist and Taubira voters.
Even all the combined green, socialist and Taubira voters is still nowhere near 50% when added to Macron's first round vote. He would need to get almost all Melenchon first round voters to turn out for him again in the runoff if Pecresse got to the runoff and got most Le Pen and Zemmour and Dupont Aignan voters to turn out for her
Look, it's simple. 40% of voters are on the right or extreme right. Macron has around 25% and the rest are on the left. Macron won the vast majority of them last time with no endorsement from a much-stronger Mélenchon and while facing a opponent who had a base in workers rather than France's answer to Margaret Thatcher. He will do it again this time. I think it is tendentious to go on about some Mélenchon voters and not to acknowledge that Pécresse will struggle to motivate some Le Pen voters.
On the latest poll from OpinionWay, the combined Pecresse, Le Pen, Zemmour and Dupont Aignan vote is 47% not 40%.
Add in Lasselle, ex MoDem and you get to 49% for the centre right and right combined.
If Pecresse got to the runoff the key would be if she can motivate Le Pen voters behind her more than Melenchon voters would get behind Macron yes.
Fair enough, looking at the wide spread of polls, let's say a right-wing total of 45% instead. (I saw 40% recently, and 42% this week. To be clear, this is still generous. Zemmour has never been a candidate and we are assuming his voters would remain motivated to vote for an ideological bloc rather than his personality in his absence, or indeed in the next few weeks of the campaign.)
"Scotland’s relatively cautious approach to coronavirus policy had an effect on public behaviour last year, including encouraging the greater use of masks, but did not stop death rates climbing above those of England during the Delta and Omicron variant waves, Financial Times analysis of official data shows.
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
"Scotland’s relatively cautious approach to coronavirus policy had an effect on public behaviour last year, including encouraging the greater use of masks, but did not stop death rates climbing above those of England during the Delta and Omicron variant waves, Financial Times analysis of official data shows.
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
There is something fundamentally wrong with this approach of trying to parse precisely death rates versus countermeasures. Disease, and in particular, pandemics, are the ultimate complex adaptive system. Two parallel entities adopting exactly the same measures (so far as we are capable of measuring them) will not have the same outcomes. That does not mean that the entity with the worse outcome performed worse.
Sure, try and find out which measures seem universally to have had a positive or negative impact in each system in which they were adopted. Also, try to find out things like are masks as effective when R=2.6 as they are when R hits 15. That is, if masks help cut transmission by 75% at 2.6, does that 75% hold at 15, or does it drop to the point of uselessness at very high Rs?
These are useful things to try to analyze. Whether France or Scotland or Denmark or South Korea did 'best' is for the birds. Complex adaptive systems do not permit that sort of judgment, even if you can measure things like excess deaths accurately.
Both the Greens and the Liberals could be heading for zero seats at this year's Swedish general election if recent polls are right. The threshold is 4%.
Both the Greens and the Liberals could be heading for zero seats at this year's Swedish general election if recent polls are right. The threshold is 4%.
Take with immense pinch of salt. There are *always* running sagas between elections about this or that party polling consistently below the threshold, but it very rarely happens. The last time it actually happened was in 1991 (Greens went from 20 legislators to zero in the September GE).
Of the 8 current parliamentary parties, 3 are the subject to the gossip now - the 2 you mention plus the Christian Democrats. The gossip is not unfounded: Swedish VI polling has an excellent track record.
My educated guess is that it might actually happen this time round, but probably only to the Liberals. What usually saves parties from this fate is:
1. Stödröster (supporters of bigger parties lending their votes to small allies whom they can form a coalition with) 2. Charismatic, likeable leaders
The Liberals lack both. The Greens lack 2 but arguably might retain 1 (despite stomping off in a huff from their coalition with the Social Democrats). The Christian Democrats arguably have both 1 and 2.
"Boots will begin selling single Covid tests for £5.99 from Wednesday, despite free kits being available via the NHS until 1 April.
Customers can purchase a pack of four lateral flow tests online for £17, or one test for £5.99, including delivery.
Next month people can buy them in-store for £12 for a pack of five." ===========
Going to say an event or seeing a vulnerable loved one and paying a £6 cost for peace of mind isn't too bad, but if you wanted to lateral flow for a period of time or say you have a family and you all wanted to test because you had come into contact with someone who had Covid well the cost will really rack up.
The vast majority of people just aren't going to test anymore.
Both the Greens and the Liberals could be heading for zero seats at this year's Swedish general election if recent polls are right. The threshold is 4%.
Take with immense pinch of salt. There are *always* running sagas between elections about this or that party polling consistently below the threshold, but it very rarely happens. The last time it actually happened was in 1991 (Greens went from 20 legislators to zero in the September GE).
Of the 8 current parliamentary parties, 3 are the subject to the gossip now - the 2 you mention plus the Christian Democrats. The gossip is not unfounded: Swedish VI polling has an excellent track record.
My educated guess is that it might actually happen this time round, but probably only to the Liberals. What usually saves parties from this fate is:
1. Stödröster (supporters of bigger parties lending their votes to small allies whom they can form a coalition with) 2. Charismatic, likeable leaders
The Liberals lack both. The Greens lack 2 but arguably might retain 1 (despite stomping off in a huff from their coalition with the Social Democrats). The Christian Democrats arguably have both 1 and 2.
Q: "Does China recognize the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic…?" Wang Wenbin: "There is a complex historical context and complicated factors at play on this issue. China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear." https://bit.ly/3hpEm6F https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1496311600101351429
Q: "Does China recognize the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic…?" Wang Wenbin: "There is a complex historical context and complicated factors at play on this issue. China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear." https://bit.ly/3hpEm6F https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1496311600101351429
Tricky one for China given their own internal difficulties.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
Because Johnson has such a sterling record in keeping his promises and following through on stuff?
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
Because Johnson has such a sterling record in keeping his promises and following through on stuff?
Adam Fleming just made the point that we wouldn’t be having this debate were it not for Brexit.
Interesting to wonder what would be happening if we were still in the EU. I guess we’d be under a lot of pressure to act on Russian money, but it’s not just London that “benefits”.
Q: "Does China recognize the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic…?" Wang Wenbin: "There is a complex historical context and complicated factors at play on this issue. China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear." https://bit.ly/3hpEm6F https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1496311600101351429
Tricky one for China given their own internal difficulties.
More than a little tricky. If they back a secessionist movement in another UN member state then they haven't a leg to stand on when they moan about other countries cosying up to Taiwan. And they know it, hence the squirming.
"Boots will begin selling single Covid tests for £5.99 from Wednesday, despite free kits being available via the NHS until 1 April.
Customers can purchase a pack of four lateral flow tests online for £17, or one test for £5.99, including delivery.
Next month people can buy them in-store for £12 for a pack of five." ===========
Going to say an event or seeing a vulnerable loved one and paying a £6 cost for peace of mind isn't too bad, but if you wanted to lateral flow for a period of time or say you have a family and you all wanted to test because you had come into contact with someone who had Covid well the cost will really rack up.
The vast majority of people just aren't going to test anymore.
I wonder how much of the population is still bothering as it is?
I have a box of LFTs from work, and I did use one this morning, but I have to admit that I am getting a little out of the habit at this stage. The remaining stockpile will last through until about the end of April at the rate of two a week; after that, unless my employer decides to keep supplying us with freebies, I'll almost certainly stop.
Morning all. Not a lot of information coming out of Ukraine overnight, but it does appear that Russian tanks are moving into the Ukranian territories that Russia has claimed. Next day or two are going to be crucial.
Well done (finally) to Germany, top of the sanctions list yesterday with the pipeline cancellation. UK, US and EU not playing their trump cards yet, maybe co-ordinating more serious sanctions for later in the week.
The first we'll hear of a demise of the crown will be via the BBC, or the Times. It certainly won't be twitter.
I don’t think so - news of such magnitude would obviously leak, and leak fast.
Did the bin laden raid leak before the announcement? Palace courtiers are pretty loyal I’d have thought.
They’ll announce that news pretty quickly when it happens, as soon as any immediate family not present have been informed.
The last thing they’d want is a leak, but the event itself involves hundreds of people almost immediately, can’t really be hushed up for more than a couple of hours.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
These aren't the Russian Roubles you're looking for...
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
Yep
But this is the latest in a long line of Johnson wriggles.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Park your BNP shrieks and treat them the same as any other. If we suspect that Russian and ex-Russian money is all linked to the Putin regime then stick an Account Freezing Order on them. Whilst we investigate. As we would any British citizen who has lots of cash that the authorities are suspicious of.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
Yep
But this is the latest in a long line of Johnson wriggles.
And I thought Tony Blair was corrupt ...
All politicians need funding. But this is through the wall next gen shit.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
There won't be any further sanctions. I mean, you right-wingers do realise that don't you?
Not unless Putin invades Ukraine proper, which I still don't think he will.
So that's it. The furore will eventually die down. Boris Johnson will still be in office. Russian money will still be flowing through London. And the PM will still be playing tennis with Putin's pals.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's more complicated than that, since there are oligarchs with both US and UK citizenship who have previously been sanctioned for their links with Putin.
Abramovitch had his visa cancelled by the UK government three years ago, as is mentioned in the linked article.
You realise that under his passport he is allowed to visit the UK for up to six months per trip?
As he only ever dropped in for a few weeks max at a time, flying in and out of Farnborough, the alleged 'cancellation' has made not one iota of difference to him.
Do you just sit there being force fed this right wing rubbish like some poor duck being prepared for foie gras?
Abramovitch had his visa cancelled by the UK government three years ago, as is mentioned in the linked article.
You realise that under his passport he is allowed to visit the UK for up to six months per trip?
As he only ever dropped in for a few weeks max at a time, flying in and out of Farnborough, the alleged 'cancellation' has made not one iota of difference to him.
Do you just sit there being force fed this right wing rubbish like some poor duck being prepared for foie gras?
And p.s. very notable that it was under Theresa May that it was altered. She actually had some morals. Unlike this disgusting vile oaf in No.10.
David Lammy on R4 demanding that the government suspends RT (Russia Today).
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
I think the Gov't should indeed ban RT.
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
So treat them like any British citizen and use an Account Freezing Order against all of them. Nothing to do with race, the word you were looking for was "nationality".
Big Dog and his government are not remotely serious about stopping Putin. The amount of Russian money from Russian nationals that floods through London property and investment markets makes far too much money for too many friends donors and patrons of the Tory Party. Adding sanctions years down the line onto already sanctioned 4th rate players does nothing.
Looking at the almost non-existent UK sanctions against Putin and his mates in light of those imposed by the EU and the US and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Tories have been bought. This is a deeply shameful day for the UK.
What nonsense. If they have been bought, why are there any sanctions in the first place? Johnson himself said that it was just the beginning.
It was impossible to do nothing, so they did next to nothing.
Na, if they had been "bought out", they'd have done nothing. Utter nonsense to call it a deeply shameful day.
Why have the last three Tory PMs accepted six figure sums to spend time with the ex wife of a former Putin minister?
What's the issue? He's clearly fallen out of favour with Putin.
Not only is he clearly out of favour with Putin, he's been a British immigrant for eighteen years and a British citizen for eleven years.
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
It's more complicated than that, since there are oligarchs with both US and UK citizenship who have previously been sanctioned for their links with Putin.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
A start, and something which ought to have been done already (& has been promised by government for several years), is passing legislation for a transparent register of foreign owners of UK property. There has been a draft bill around since 2018.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Yes but still as kleptocratic. The looting of Russia by the mafioso that we know as "oligarchs" is as bad as anything that has gone on in post colonial Africa. Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Yes but still as kleptocratic. The looting of Russia by the mafioso that we know as "oligarchs" is as bad as anything that has gone on in post colonial Africa. Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
Nobody said that all the oligarchs are friends of Putin. Its just that if we're serious about turning the screws on Putin then that means all of the screws. An awful lot of Russian money tied up in London property - have we even considered generally freezing Russian assets?
A start, and something which ought to have been done already (& has been promised by government for several years), is passing legislation for a transparent register of foreign owners of UK property. There has been a draft bill around since 2018.
More blood and soil racism from you Mr Griffin. Don't you know that it is racist to go after Tory party donors and the money that makes Tory party donors rich? Don't you know that treating British citizens of Russian extraction as you would any other citizen is what the BNP said? Don't you understand that we can't possibly probe where all the Russian money laundered via the city and sunk into high-end property without being fascist?
Is was. Until this government decided to break the law in a very specific and limited way. And lying to the Queen to illegally prorogue parliament. And lying to parliament about both repeatedly breaking the law and the lie to deny breaking the law.
And if Putin merely consolidates the territory he has already taken we will sit on our hands...
If we throw the book at him now, there is no disincentive to roll into Mariupol, forge a land bridge to Crimea, send tanks across the Pripyet Marshes to Kyiv. So far all he has done is to formally recognise areas he has de facto recognised since 2014 and admit he has troops there when they have been there all along. Both an escalation but far from what could happen. The US response looks less than it could be, too.
Mr. Pioneers, I didn't pay much attention to the detail yesterday, but the mood music does seem to largely agree with you that, frankly, the UK should be doing more. Much more.
But assuming Russian = bad/friend of Putin, and then alleging any concept of nuance or treating people as individuals rather than Evil Russians, as some do, is not something I find credible or helpful.
Just sanctioning rich Russians because they’re rich does seem a little like WW2 Japanese-American internment. Surely the point is to sanction those who are suspected of funding, helping, having influence over or being influenced by Putin and his cronies. Plus those with any financial interest in occupied territories.
We already have a list of 35 from post Skripal. That seems a pretty good starting point. If it means nationalising Chelsea FC then so be it.
And let's be honest about this. We did bugger all about the shooting down of a commercial airliner. We did bugger all about the poisoning of Navalny. Or the poisoning of Livitnenko. Or Pyotr Verzilov. Or Kara-Murza. Or Politkovskaya. We did bugger all about the Salisbury poisonings. We are doing bugger all about the "incursions" into Ukraine.
We love Russian money in the Conservative Party, in London, in the seedy underworld that helps line the pockets.
Is was. Until this government decided to break the law in a very specific and limited way. And lying to the Queen to illegally prorogue parliament. And lying to parliament about both repeatedly breaking the law and the lie to deny breaking the law.
So you support further law breaking. Good to know.
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here, although still a bit chilly.
I don't get the impression (yet; I may be wrong) that any Russian troops have moved further into Ukraine that the two breakaway states. If they stop there; what do we, in the sense of the West, do?
At the very best now, Johnson will be playing catch-up with the US and the EU - following, rather than leading.
Just doing it their own way. As noted by others, there isn't all that much difference in them.
When this is pointed out the response is not:
Here are the differences: 1) 2) 3)
But Toreee money from Russians! Since these “Russians” must also be British residents (and some of them long critics of Putin) try replacing “Russians” with “Jews” and see how it sounds…
Trying hard but no coconut, as anyone knows they get most via shell companies and not the few that bought their British citizenship. Keep up the propaganda , CCHQ is proud of Lady Haw Haw.
Good morning everyone. Very pleasant here, although still a bit chilly.
I don't get the impression (yet; I may be wrong) that any Russian troops have moved further into Ukraine that the two breakaway states. If they stop there; what do we, in the sense of the West, do?
Nothing.
Except we ought to be sorting out Putin's money in the UK.
Carlotta, you are really off on one today about the law. It's very simple for the Gov't to pass emergency legislation to ban Russia Today.
A channel on which I have incidentally appeared several times!
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Introduced by Labour, removed by the Conservatives.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
Hitchens is just a loudmouth contrarian, trying to get clicks and likes for the Mail. We should all have learned during the pandemic, that such types generate way more heat than light.
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Any dirty money is welcome here, just fork out for your golden visa.
Introduced by Labour, removed by the Conservatives.
I am no fan of some of what happened under Tony Blair, as ought to be obvious by now.
And I rather liked Theresa May. She had a moral spine running through her. Not too bad for a Conservative.
Abramovitch had his visa cancelled by the UK government three years ago, as is mentioned in the linked article.
You realise that under his passport he is allowed to visit the UK for up to six months per trip?
As he only ever dropped in for a few weeks max at a time, flying in and out of Farnborough, the alleged 'cancellation' has made not one iota of difference to him.
Do you just sit there being force fed this right wing rubbish like some poor duck being prepared for foie gras?
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
"Why I blame the arrogant, foolish West: Our response to this crisis in Ukraine has been to react with mistrust and abuse, and with blatant attempts to worsen the situation, writes Peter Hitchens"
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
In what way is this significantly more than the U.K. is doing?
Cancelling NordStream2 is Germany shouldering the biggest hit in these first round of sanctions, but otherwise they are much of a muchness.
There’s a lot of non-specific complaining without setting out what the differences are. On the blocked banks the U.K. and EU share 2 out of the 3 for example.
Keep trying Lady Haw Haw
Bet you’re pleased Mammy knows best!
You and Malcolm are like a pair of Emporers riding around and arguing about who is dressed the finest whilst neither of you is wearing more than a transparent fig leaf.
It is fun though and mine is a designer fig leaf, not a Tory procured dud.
On topic: I did not realise that all 500 names of Parrainnages were placed in the public domain. Does this happen with proposers in he UK in Parliamentary Elections? Were I listening to a Brit saying that, it would be snow in Paris.
Off topic: The France24 International Correspondent one Dave Keating describing the Russian occupied areas of Ukraine as "technically Ukranian".
This may be Dave not being up to speed. Yesterday he was describing the suspension of Nordstream 2 as "cancellation".
And I see that President Macron is still in bit of a fluff over Aukus. Australia downgraded to a 'case by case' partner rather than 'strategic'.
Liz Truss rejects suggestions from @KayBurley that the Tories should hand back £2m the party has received from Russian donors. The foreign secretary says the donors are British citizens and “not necessarily friends of Vladimir Putin”. https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
More blood and soil racism?
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
That's possibly simplistic, if by citizen you simply mean passport holder. After all, we've effectively been selling passports to the super-rich under the golden passport scheme.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
Indeed, perhaps we have finally found a use for Priti's legislation to strip people of their passports...
"Scotland’s relatively cautious approach to coronavirus policy had an effect on public behaviour last year, including encouraging the greater use of masks, but did not stop death rates climbing above those of England during the Delta and Omicron variant waves, Financial Times analysis of official data shows.
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
There is something fundamentally wrong with this approach of trying to parse precisely death rates versus countermeasures. Disease, and in particular, pandemics, are the ultimate complex adaptive system. Two parallel entities adopting exactly the same measures (so far as we are capable of measuring them) will not have the same outcomes. That does not mean that the entity with the worse outcome performed worse.
Sure, try and find out which measures seem universally to have had a positive or negative impact in each system in which they were adopted. Also, try to find out things like are masks as effective when R=2.6 as they are when R hits 15. That is, if masks help cut transmission by 75% at 2.6, does that 75% hold at 15, or does it drop to the point of uselessness at very high Rs?
These are useful things to try to analyze. Whether France or Scotland or Denmark or South Korea did 'best' is for the birds. Complex adaptive systems do not permit that sort of judgment, even if you can measure things like excess deaths accurately.
Agree that it’s simplistic to associate differences in excess deaths with any one single NPI - but it’s increasingly clear that there have been more excess deaths in Scotland than England - The Times suggesting that poorer underlying health may be an important factor:
Scotland has experienced the highest number of extra deaths from all causes during the pandemic compared with other parts of the UK, according to Times analysis. New calculations show the rise in the number of people who died, compared with the five years before the pandemic, was significantly greater in Scotland than England.
With an average of 23.9 excess deaths per million people every week since the spring of 2020, the surge in mortality was worse than Wales on 22.9, England on 18.6 and Northern Ireland on 18.8. As mortality rates and hospital admissions from Covid are lower north of the border, it is thought that people dying from other illnesses are behind the toll.
Which makes one wonder whether greater focus on control of COVID in Scotland will be helpful in the long run.
'Margaret Hodge, the veteran Labour MP, told the House of Commons the sanctions were “too narrow” and that a list of 35 oligarchs drawn up in retaliation for the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny - including the name of Abramovich - should now face restrictions.
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
Wrong to pick out any one paragraph because the article makes other telling points, especially about this being a repeat of what happened with Crimea in 2014. But I do like this:
'The Russian banks that Boris Johnson put on the sanctions list today aren’t the major players: they’re the spare change in the Russian economy. The three individuals he named have already been sanctioned in the US since 2018. So, we’re picking off the minnows but allowing the basking sharks to swim freely. Johnson didn’t even know whom we had already sanctioned, claiming that Roman Abramovich was on the list and refusing to correct the record when I asked him about it. Later in the day, his office had to own up that he was wrong. Is it too much to expect that a prime minister at a moment of international crisis would actually know some of the details?'
Comments
Putin convened an unscheduled meeting with his Security Council in Moscow on Monday. The meeting was broadcast at 5 pm. But what time was it really held? Let's look at some participants' watches. Sergei Shoigu & Sergei Lavrov prep at 11:45. #OSINT #UkraineRussia #Russia #Ukraine
https://twitter.com/Forrest_Rogers/status/1496254107660738568
TLDR - the signing ceremony was before the consultation which was recorded and broadcast “live” five hours after it took place…
With Trump anything to the east of the Rhine would be heading to Russia.
Thankfully Biden is not Trump.
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟨🟩⬜⬜🟨
🟩🟩⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Fun one this morning.
But at the same time, what sort of signal is it to Putin? Up to eight? What does that mean? Three? No doubt it has Putin shaking in his boots.
Wordle 248 3/6*
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟨⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Don't seem to have access to 249 yet
Denied by a House of Lords source
https://twitter.com/theonlyjasonlee/status/1496256053817880580?s=20&t=iYNMF31RJTixor_vytv-0w
https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1496247542824284174?s=20&t=iYNMF31RJTixor_vytv-0w
But, as a PBer pointed out earlier, the best bet is to stop the daughters of his very rich best mates using London as a playground of high end flats and super top retail and amazing restaurants.
Freeze the whole damn lot of it.
imho the best way to halt Putin is to stop his non political (but key) mates having a fucking party all over europe. Freeze them out, block them. stop them. No visas. No movement. No landing rights. No access to their money. No party in Cannes for the daughter who wants to be a film star.
Total and massive freeze.
Nothing Russian moves anywhere in Europe or the US. Full stop. Done and over.
And we start with EUFA football. The final is over. Done. Not happening.
We are now at war. And Putin must pay the price.
Total and utter focus now needed by the West. We have wasted years pretending this wasn't coming.
Add in Lasselle, ex MoDem and you get to 49% for the centre right and right combined.
https://www.opinion-way.com/fr/barometre-opinionway-kea-partners-election-presidentielle-2022
If Pecresse got to the runoff the key would be if she can motivate Le Pen voters behind her more than Melenchon voters would get behind Macron yes.
nerdlegame 35 5/6
🟪⬛⬛🟪🟪⬛⬛⬛
🟪🟪🟪⬛⬛🟩🟪⬛
🟩🟩🟪🟩⬛🟩🟩🟪
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟪🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
https://nerdlegame.com #nerdle
nerdlegame 35 2/6
🟪⬛🟪🟪⬛🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Wordle 249 3/6
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Scotland continued to require the use of face coverings in public places last summer and introduced vaccine passports in the autumn, yet registered higher per capita deaths for much of the period compared with England, where such policies were not imposed.
The higher Scottish death rates through the autumn and in January will fuel fierce debate over the merits of the different approaches taken across the UK during the pandemic." (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/0eccfeef-2913-43a7-9518-6728f15e556e
Sure, try and find out which measures seem universally to have had a positive or negative impact in each system in which they were adopted. Also, try to find out things like are masks as effective when R=2.6 as they are when R hits 15. That is, if masks help cut transmission by 75% at 2.6, does that 75% hold at 15, or does it drop to the point of uselessness at very high Rs?
These are useful things to try to analyze. Whether France or Scotland or Denmark or South Korea did 'best' is for the birds. Complex adaptive systems do not permit that sort of judgment, even if you can measure things like excess deaths accurately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Swedish_general_election#Vote_share
Of the 8 current parliamentary parties, 3 are the subject to the gossip now - the 2 you mention plus the Christian Democrats. The gossip is not unfounded: Swedish VI polling has an excellent track record.
My educated guess is that it might actually happen this time round, but probably only to the Liberals. What usually saves parties from this fate is:
1. Stödröster (supporters of bigger parties lending their votes to small allies whom they can form a coalition with)
2. Charismatic, likeable leaders
The Liberals lack both. The Greens lack 2 but arguably might retain 1 (despite stomping off in a huff from their coalition with the Social Democrats). The Christian Democrats arguably have both 1 and 2.
"Boots will begin selling single Covid tests for £5.99 from Wednesday, despite free kits being available via the NHS until 1 April.
Customers can purchase a pack of four lateral flow tests online for £17, or one test for £5.99, including delivery.
Next month people can buy them in-store for £12 for a pack of five."
===========
Going to say an event or seeing a vulnerable loved one and paying a £6 cost for peace of mind isn't too bad, but if you wanted to lateral flow for a period of time or say you have a family and you all wanted to test because you had come into contact with someone who had Covid well the cost will really rack up.
The vast majority of people just aren't going to test anymore.
Wang Wenbin: "There is a complex historical context and complicated factors at play on this issue. China’s position on the Ukraine issue is consistent and clear."
https://bit.ly/3hpEm6F
https://twitter.com/JChengWSJ/status/1496311600101351429
Interesting to wonder what would be happening if we were still in the EU. I guess we’d be under a lot of pressure to act on Russian money, but it’s not just London that “benefits”.
I have a box of LFTs from work, and I did use one this morning, but I have to admit that I am getting a little out of the habit at this stage. The remaining stockpile will last through until about the end of April at the rate of two a week; after that, unless my employer decides to keep supplying us with freebies, I'll almost certainly stop.
Well done (finally) to Germany, top of the sanctions list yesterday with the pipeline cancellation. UK, US and EU not playing their trump cards yet, maybe co-ordinating more serious sanctions for later in the week.
The last thing they’d want is a leak, but the event itself involves hundreds of people almost immediately, can’t really be hushed up for more than a couple of hours.
I love French bureaucracy, from a safe distance.
But "we will go further if we see a full-scale invasion of Ukraine"
https://twitter.com/tamcohen/status/1496381356741476352
And if Putin merely consolidates the territory he has already taken we will sit on our hands...
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1496382942599340032
Pretty disgusting blood and soil racism to be referring to British citizens as where they were born rather than as British. Anyone who joins the BNP in doing that should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
And Johnson told a porky in the Commons about Roman Abramovitch. Or misremembered. Or whatever he likes to call his chaotic worldview.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/22/boris-johnson-wrongly-tells-mps-roman-abramovich-already-sanctions/
It's worth noting oligarchs moving themselves and money out of Russia may be opponents rather than friends of Putin. Individuals should be assessed individually, and money may need (in a moral sense) to be handed back. But just assuming a Russian is a friend of Putin is something that is unwise, given the chemical and radioactive attacks we've seen aimed at Russians here.
'Not necessarily a friend of Putin.'
The last refuge of Russian-Tory money laundering.
But this is the latest in a long line of Johnson wriggles.
And I thought Tony Blair was corrupt ...
Replying to Mrs Hodge, Mr Johnson said: “I understand her concern, but I believe that she's in error in what she says,” adding “Abramovich is already facing sanctions.”
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and former foreign office minister, said Mr Johnson’s claim was “untrue”. Mr Bryant told the Commons: “I don't think Abramovich has been sanctioned incidentally, just to correct the Prime Minister. I don't think he's been sanctioned yet at all.”
Mr Bryant then posted on Twitter: “The PM told the House that Roman Abramovich has already been sanctioned. He hasn’t. It’s untrue.”'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/22/boris-johnson-wrongly-tells-mps-roman-abramovich-already-sanctions/
Any British citizens are British donors not Russian donors.
Not unless Putin invades Ukraine proper, which I still don't think he will.
So that's it. The furore will eventually die down. Boris Johnson will still be in office. Russian money will still be flowing through London. And the PM will still be playing tennis with Putin's pals.
https://news.sky.com/story/turning-up-to-a-gunfight-with-a-peashooter-johnson-under-fire-for-limited-sanctions-against-russia-12549233
Really? The government should decide who gets to broadcast and not OFCOM?
I don’t think he’s thought that one through.
As he only ever dropped in for a few weeks max at a time, flying in and out of Farnborough, the alleged 'cancellation' has made not one iota of difference to him.
Do you just sit there being force fed this right wing rubbish like some poor duck being prepared for foie gras?
Liz Truss - I don't rule out anything
#KayBurley - The Tory Party has received £2m in Russian linked cash since Boris Johnson took office.. should that be given back?
Liz Truss - No
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1496384345828958209/video/1
We don't allow hate crimes. There's plenty of precedence for restricting some freedom in order to protect freedom. The Ultras on the Far Right hate that notion but it's an important one.
Liz Truss “Nyet 🇷🇺”
#LizTruss #Ukraine #PMQs #UkraineRussiaCrisis #JohnsonOut30 https://twitter.com/Stuzipants/status/1496383659011674113/photo/1
Big Dog and his government are not remotely serious about stopping Putin. The amount of Russian money from Russian nationals that floods through London property and investment markets makes far too much money for too many friends donors and patrons of the Tory Party. Adding sanctions years down the line onto already sanctioned 4th rate players does nothing.
There has been a draft bill around since 2018.
The UK is a country of the rule of law.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM
Have some dignity man!
I see the Daily Mail is joining in the victim blaming too:
From today’s Daily Mail: PETER HITCHENS: Why I blame the arrogant West for the Ukraine crisis https://t.co/JcaXW78Vbf via @MailOnline
But assuming Russian = bad/friend of Putin, and then alleging any concept of nuance or treating people as individuals rather than Evil Russians, as some do, is not something I find credible or helpful.
Partisan and cheap, most certainly.
We already have a list of 35 from post Skripal. That seems a pretty good starting point. If it means nationalising Chelsea FC then so be it.
We love Russian money in the Conservative Party, in London, in the seedy underworld that helps line the pockets.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10540829/PETER-HITCHENS-blame-arrogant-foolish-West-Ukraine-crisis.html
I don't get the impression (yet; I may be wrong) that any Russian troops have moved further into Ukraine that the two breakaway states.
If they stop there; what do we, in the sense of the West, do?
The man has no sense of irony, along with being very stupid.
Except we ought to be sorting out Putin's money in the UK.
Carlotta, you are really off on one today about the law. It's very simple for the Gov't to pass emergency legislation to ban Russia Today.
A channel on which I have incidentally appeared several times!
Oh, and the horseshoe of political views, where the left and right end up almost meeting, is definitely true when it comes to issues like Russia.
On that note, I shall take a few days off from here. Ukranian situation is way too close to home, to want to get into arguments with random internet people.
And I rather liked Theresa May. She had a moral spine running through her. Not too bad for a Conservative.
Some Russian criminal comes along and wants to donate lots of money to the Tories, and is rightly told, no. How does taking the same money from the same person in the same circumstances really suddenly become OK if he buys a British passport at the same time?
Felix take note.
While I recognise that it's much easier to call for more sanctions than to get down to actually imposing them, I thought his article yesterday spot on.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/22/vladimir-putin-ukraine-sanctions-boris-johnson
Listening to France24 this morning.
On topic: I did not realise that all 500 names of Parrainnages were placed in the public domain. Does this happen with proposers in he UK in Parliamentary Elections? Were I listening to a Brit saying that, it would be snow in Paris.
Off topic: The France24 International Correspondent one Dave Keating describing the Russian occupied areas of Ukraine as "technically Ukranian".
This may be Dave not being up to speed. Yesterday he was describing the suspension of Nordstream 2 as "cancellation".
And I see that President Macron is still in bit of a fluff over Aukus. Australia downgraded to a 'case by case' partner rather than 'strategic'.
Scotland has experienced the highest number of extra deaths from all causes during the pandemic compared with other parts of the UK, according to Times analysis. New calculations show the rise in the number of people who died, compared with the five years before the pandemic, was significantly greater in Scotland than England.
With an average of 23.9 excess deaths per million people every week since the spring of 2020, the surge in mortality was worse than Wales on 22.9, England on 18.6 and Northern Ireland on 18.8. As mortality rates and hospital admissions from Covid are lower north of the border, it is thought that people dying from other illnesses are behind the toll.
Which makes one wonder whether greater focus on control of COVID in Scotland will be helpful in the long run.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c0ae0e80-8935-11ec-a837-0153f5f4adaf?shareToken=80aa1914a8bcc96a2fc6cce092529c56
Wrong to pick out any one paragraph because the article makes other telling points, especially about this being a repeat of what happened with Crimea in 2014. But I do like this:
'The Russian banks that Boris Johnson put on the sanctions list today aren’t the major players: they’re the spare change in the Russian economy. The three individuals he named have already been sanctioned in the US since 2018. So, we’re picking off the minnows but allowing the basking sharks to swim freely. Johnson didn’t even know whom we had already sanctioned, claiming that Roman Abramovich was on the list and refusing to correct the record when I asked him about it. Later in the day, his office had to own up that he was wrong. Is it too much to expect that a prime minister at a moment of international crisis would actually know some of the details?'