Time to bet that Le Pen won’t get on the ballot – politicalbetting.com

tlg86 said:

First. There is something seriously wrong with democracy in France if a candidate on c.15% and second place in the polls can't make the starting line.

Surely a deposit system would make more sense. Say, 1m Euros and then you get back 100k for every 0.5% of the vote you get up to 5% when you get it all back.

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

malcolmg said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lol, Yoons going mental in the replies.

Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too

The interview given by Alyn Smith MP after the meeting in Kiev was hilarious. They really ought to keep quiet.

He needs to be locked up in a dark room and key thrown away.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Reintroduce imperial measures to what? Speed limit signs still show miles per hour, for instance, but champagne can no longer be bought in pints, as Churchill would have had.

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

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?

No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.

That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.

Who is he? Temerko?

UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.

If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.

I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.

Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.

What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?

Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.

And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?

From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.

Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/

"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."

"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."

"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."

Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.

Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.

The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.

I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?

First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.

This is simply bonkers.

For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.

I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.

Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.

Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.

Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?

He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.

It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.

Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.

Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?

Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes

Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No

Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.

So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?

From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.

"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."

As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!

And that's why funding reform will never happen.

Well, one reason.

But I absolutely support very strict limits on amounts that can be given. Since doners aren't supposed to directly gain from doing so the risks of giving them such influence outweighs the 'harm' of a party not being able to receive flipping great wodges of cash from a small group of people and organisations. Spend less and ask for volunteers.

Were Charles here he'd say something about people just wanting to give bsck etc, but tough, and they'd get over the disappointment.

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

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?

No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.

That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.

Who is he? Temerko?

UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.

If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.

I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.

Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.

What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?

Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.

And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?

From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.

Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/

"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."

"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."

"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."

Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.

Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.

The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.

I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?

First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.

This is simply bonkers.

For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.

I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.

Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.

Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.

Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?

He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.

It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.

Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.

Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?

Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes

Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No

Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.

So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?

From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.

"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."

As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!

And that's why funding reform will never happen.

Well, one reason.

But I absolutely support very strict limits on amounts that can be given. Since doners aren't supposed to directly gain from doing so the risks of giving them such influence outweighs the 'harm' of a party not being able to receive flipping great wodges of cash from a small group of people and organisations. Spend less and ask for volunteers.

Were Charles here he'd say something about people just wanting to give bsck etc, but tough, and they'd get over the disappointment.

The problem is, funding reform will require cross-party agreement to avoid the party in opposition claiming the governing party is rigging the system.

And the Tories will always insist that unions are treated like any other donor, and Labour will always insist that they aren't.

Burgessian said:

This is quite something. Vladimir Putin's public humiliation of his spy chief at the recent conclave. I hadn't realised quite how contemptuous he is of his apparatchiks. Subtitles provided. Really worth watching.

https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628

Malmesbury said:

Applicant said:

kle4 said:

Applicant said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

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?

No I don't simply mean passport holder. He's lived in the UK for eighteen years. He became a citizen by naturalising 7 years after he moved here.

That makes him a Brit and it's racist to say anything else.

Who is he? Temerko?

UK mainstream politicians should not be accepting sizeable donations from anyone who has close links to Russias security forces, however long they have been in the UK or whatever passport they hold.

If people consider that view racist, I would rather be considered racist than pretend it is okay to be accepting these donations.

I really really doubt the same people claiming it is racist to question Tories receiving funds from ex Putin cronies, would give Corbyn the same leeway. I would be consistent on both.

Indeed I would cap donations at £1k per year per person/business/union, to make the whole issue go away.

What evidence fo you have that Temerko has close links to Russia's security forces? Other than he used to be Russian?

Whether they were born in Moscow or Manchester, anyone whom there is actual evidence or especially a conviction for such absolutely is an issue. Casting aspersions due to race is an entirely different matter.

And considering the courts said that Putin was trying to persecute Temerko back in 2005 I'm assuming the evidence from the courts is the polar opposite of your allegations. Unless you have some overwhelming new evidence?

From reuters below. According to them he himself accepts he has had formal relations with Russian security services. Claims to have fallen out with Putin and that is the most likely explanation by far but if you were FSB wanting an agent active at the top of UK politics, your cover story would indeed be a fall out.

Really no-one should be able to buy access to our political leaders in the way they do, but to allow people with historic links to a hostile superpower to do so, whether they have fallen out or not, is a massive security risk.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/britain-eu-johnson-russian/

"Temerko said that in those days his status meant he was essentially untouchable. His security ties, he said, once got him access to a meeting of the Russian Security Council, the circle of 24 top Russian officials, chaired by Putin, who steer national security policy."

"One of Temerko’s former business partners in Russia, Leonid Nevzlin, said Temerko had long-standing ties with Russian security agencies, but declined to say whether he believes those ties remain active. Nevzlin and Temerko were shareholders in oil firm Yukos, before Putin’s government seized control of the company. Nevzlin, who was one of the main shareholders, said Yukos’s management brought Temerko in “for several projects as well as for his contacts at the top of the Federal Security Service and the Defence Ministry."

"Asked to respond, Temerko said in a follow-up interview this week that his role at Yukos encompassed the oil company’s connections with the entire Russian state, not just with the Defence Ministry. His relations with people in the security services, he added, were “formal” and not “personal.” He denied having any ongoing links with Russian security services."

Not to be a Grammar Nazi but there is a crucial difference between "has" and "had". The use of past tense or present tense there is extremely important.

Throughout history many defectors and migrants have left a country and played important roles going forwards in even classified materials. The Manhattan Project in World War Two famously even had German-born scientists working in it like Hans Bethe.

The fact that Temerko had connections with Russia doesn't mean he has them. Yes you can imply that the fall out with Putin's Russia could be a "cover story" but the simple fact is that its more than that - the evidence has been put before the courts already and the courts ruled that he was being persecuted by Putin. Furthermore I expect (but have no evidence, its simply reasonable to assume) that MI6 would put such potentially exposed people on a watchlist and be looking for evidence of any such risks.

I put faith in the security services and the rule of law where the courts have ruled that he is persecuted by Putin. Why do you object to the rule of law?

First I am considered a racist for objecting to ex Putin connections funding the Tory party and having privileged access to our leaders, now I am accused of rejecting the rule of law.

This is simply bonkers.

For a low level MoD or Security Services role we would interview people with great background depth and rule out people for things like an alcoholic mother or a brother with a gambling problem. Yet many seem quite content with billionaires who attended the Russian Security Council meetings chaired by Putin to pay for access to our PMs and Foreign Secretaries.

I question institutions because they repeatedly fail and need scrutiny. I question financial motives because it is an obvious way to control people. This is common sense, not racism or rejecting the rule of law.

Its not bonkers. The security services (presumably) and the courts (definitely) have looked into Temerko. Since decades ago, when Tony Blair was PM. The courts ruled that Termerko was being persecuted by Putin, that is a matter of case history that is public record. That is the rule of law.

Furthermore Termerko acquired British citizenship over a decade ago, seven years after he migrated here when Blair was Prime Minister. So he is British, that is a simple fact, so to call him Russian instead of British is racism that belongs in the BNP. Migrants who acquire British citizenship are Britons they are not the nationality of their birth and that is unequivocal.

Or do you seriously not accept that migrants who have had British citizenship for over a decade are Britons?

He is British. He is an ex Putin connection who many say has current connections to the Russian state. He himself says he has had past connections to the Russian state and security services but does not any more.

It is not being born Russian that should disqualify him from paid access to the PM, it is the connections to the Russian state and its security apparatus.

Past connections, not present ones, which the courts (and presumably our security services) have already ruled upon.

Should that mean he's disbarred for life, when the courts have already ruled on this matter?

Disbarred? From what, buying the influence of a PM? Yes

Living here, running a business, expressing his opinions? No

Nobody is buying influence of a PM. British citizens are entitled to donate to political parties and you've accepted that he is a British citizen.

So under what procedure should you strip his rights away, when he's a British citizen that the courts have already ruled is persecuted by Putin?

From the same Reuters article. This is paying for influence.

"Temerko spoke warmly about his “friend” Johnson, telling how the two men sometimes call each other “Sasha,” the Russian diminutive for Alexander, which is Johnson’s real first name. He described how, at the beginning of Johnson’s tenure as Foreign Secretary from 2016 to 2018, they would often “plot” late into the evening over a bottle of wine on the balcony of Johnson’s office at parliament in Westminster."

As stated my control would be a max £1k political donation per year from any individual, business or union, which would make these issues irrelevant. Until then it should be political parties and leaders exercising responsibility or facing public flak when they dont!

And that's why funding reform will never happen.

Well, one reason.

But I absolutely support very strict limits on amounts that can be given. Since doners aren't supposed to directly gain from doing so the risks of giving them such influence outweighs the 'harm' of a party not being able to receive flipping great wodges of cash from a small group of people and organisations. Spend less and ask for volunteers.

Were Charles here he'd say something about people just wanting to give bsck etc, but tough, and they'd get over the disappointment.

The problem is, funding reform will require cross-party agreement to avoid the party in opposition claiming the governing party is rigging the system.

And the Tories will always insist that unions are treated like any other donor, and Labour will always insist that they aren't.

Indeed. I recall a hilarious conversation with a very Old Labour friend

Him - "Trade Union funding is different"
Me - "I will start the National Union of Boilermaker And Hedge Fund Owners"
Him - "That wouldn't be a proper Union"
Me -"Who decides what a proper Union is?"
Him "TUC"
Me - "Non-trivial number of unions are not affiliated to the TUC"
Him - "... government..."
Me - "Excellent. Then the government declares the RMT not to be a union..."
Him - "!!!????!!"

Malmesbury said:

Burgessian said:

This is quite something. Vladimir Putin's public humiliation of his spy chief at the recent conclave. I hadn't realised quite how contemptuous he is of his apparatchiks. Subtitles provided. Really worth watching.

https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628

The whole thing is reaching SPECTRE levels of WTF....

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lol, Yoons going mental in the replies.

Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too

The interview given by Alyn Smith MP after the meeting in Kiev was hilarious. They really ought to keep quiet.

He needs to be locked up in a dark room and key thrown away.

Don’t worry - he lives in London and pisses and moans about having to fly up to Scotland for constituency work every week - a friend had the misfortune to sit next to him on the plane once…

Burgessian said:

CarlottaVance said:

FPT:

malcolmg said:

Burgessian said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Lol, Yoons going mental in the replies.

Alex Salmond, your ex-leader. RT apologist for Putin. Nats really should keep quiet on this subject too

The interview given by Alyn Smith MP after the meeting in Kiev was hilarious. They really ought to keep quiet.

He needs to be locked up in a dark room and key thrown away.

Don’t worry - he lives in London and pisses and moans about having to fly up to Scotland for constituency work every week - a friend had the misfortune to sit next to him on the plane once…

He used to be an MEP, of course. So just transferred the entitled piss-taking attitude from Strasbourg to Westminster. They have a lovely time the Westminster SNP group. No wonder they're not really serious about independence. They won't all get to be ambassadors.

TimS said:

Malmesbury said:

Burgessian said:

This is quite something. Vladimir Putin's public humiliation of his spy chief at the recent conclave. I hadn't realised quite how contemptuous he is of his apparatchiks. Subtitles provided. Really worth watching.

https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628

The whole thing is reaching SPECTRE levels of WTF....

He really is a Bond Villain isn't he? Even the name: Vladimir Putin.

"Well hello, Mr Macron. I've been expecting you".

CarlottaVance said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Traffic Cones hotline was an important principle - giving voters access to a bureaucracy which before had been untouchable and unaccountable.

This on the other hand, as Malc would say is pure “mince”.

It’s actually a study looking for any benefits of doing it.

I’ll happily do it.

“None”

Invoice attached.

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;

Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106
'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'

P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'

Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51

'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'

P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'

J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992

P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'

I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.

Communists to serfs: we are going to free you.
Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.

There was a distinction between serfs and peasants, though, no? Serfdom had - surely - been abolished by the twentieth century? Serfs were basically slaves, albeit slaves who had the privileges of being able to be subject to taxes and conscription.

I've read a couple of histories of Russia, though some time ago now, so I may be misremebering. They may as well have been subtitled '1000 years of sheer unrelenting bloody misery for everyone'.

MoonRabbit said:

Cookie said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

@Farooq Three books, picked at random from my library on the subject;

Alexander Polunov, Russia in the Nineteenth Century P.106
'The peasants could not accept such prominent features of the [1861] reform as the preservation of gentry landholding and the redemption of their allotments...the peasants began to suspect the Tsar had been deceived...rumours arose of a scheduled hour or promised hour when the Tsar would announce real emancipation to them, without redemption payments or reduced allotments.'

P.232 Inequality and stratification would inevitably result when the peasants personally owned their allotment land and could buy and sell it...Stolypin predicted that some of the peasants who lost their lands would find work in the growing industrial cities. For others, he proposed large scale emigration to the eastern areas of the empire...[which] would remove the hapless, embittered and potentially rebellious peasants from overpopulated central Russia.'

Peter Waldron,The End of Imperial Russia P. 51

'The need for them [the peasantry] to pay for the land they farmed was wholly at odds with the fundamental belief among the peasants that, as they worked the land, they were its real owners.'

P.54 'Even where farmsteads were formed wholly separate from the village settlements, there are many examples of them being occupied only seasonally so that the peasants returned to live in the village during the winter. The attraction of the village community remained strong.'

J. N. WEstwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992

P.79 'To the peasant, who believed the land was rightfully his, it seemed he was being compelled to buy his own property....many were in no hurry because they anticipated the land to be received would be more of a burden than an asset; it was too small to support him but entailed heavy tax and redemption payments.'

I’m not taking the pee or anything Doctor, but you can reference Anna Karenina too, it covers the subject very well.

Communists to serfs: we are going to free you.
Serfs to Communists: bugger off you deluded capitalist twits, we like our way off life, we are guaranteed work and housing.

There was a distinction between serfs and peasants, though, no? Serfdom had - surely - been abolished by the twentieth century? Serfs were basically slaves, albeit slaves who had the privileges of being able to be subject to taxes and conscription.

I've read a couple of histories of Russia, though some time ago now, so I may be misremebering. They may as well have been subtitled '1000 years of sheer unrelenting bloody misery for everyone'.

I’m happy to be corrected, but I think, probably because Russia had such a strong authoritarian and brutal state, they were more than half a century behind the nineteenth century liberal revolutions by the time Germans put Lenin (another vlad!) on the train.

CarlottaVance said:

It should be noted that if RT is shut down in the UK then it's pretty much a certainty the BBC will be kicked out of Russia. Seeing barely anyone watches RT in the UK and they'd still produce their web content I'd rather keep them and still have the BBC operating inside Russia.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1496464538404851719

DecrepiterJohnL said:

NickyBreakspear said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Traffic Cones hotline was an important principle - giving voters access to a bureaucracy which before had been untouchable and unaccountable.

This on the other hand, as Malc would say is pure “mince”.

It’s actually a study looking for any benefits of doing it.

I’ll happily do it.

“None”

Invoice attached.

Can I suggest selling petrol and diesel in gallons. We still think about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon - the obvious mixed measure miles per litre does not appear to be well used.

I do not drive but my observation is that people mainly "fill her up" or use currency as their unit of measurement, adding £5 or £10's worth.

Farooq said:

Pro_Rata said:

To troll the Scots, I'd bring in the dram (3.5ml) as the official optic measure for whisky. Or halve it for a wee dram.

I'll have a wee dram of Talisker
Here you go (drip)
?

JRM could go for that one.

Firstly, you mean 35ml, not 3.5ml

Secondly, at least in my experience, if you ask for a dram you get 50ml. A nip is 25ml.

Cookie said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Traffic Cones hotline was an important principle - giving voters access to a bureaucracy which before had been untouchable and unaccountable.

This on the other hand, as Malc would say is pure “mince”.

It’s actually a study looking for any benefits of doing it.

I’ll happily do it.

“None”

Invoice attached.

We have, at present, an uneasy balance between the units which people use and which are pleasant to say, and the units which are technically easy to calculate in. I'd say the balance is fine. I was uncomfortable with efforts to criminalise the use of imperial measures, but I see no need at all to actively go out of our way to bring imperial measures back into use where we're currently not using them.

NickyBreakspear said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Traffic Cones hotline was an important principle - giving voters access to a bureaucracy which before had been untouchable and unaccountable.

This on the other hand, as Malc would say is pure “mince”.

It’s actually a study looking for any benefits of doing it.

I’ll happily do it.

“None”

Invoice attached.

Can I suggest selling petrol and diesel in gallons. We still think about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon - the obvious mixed measure miles per litre does not appear to be well used.

Anabobazina said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Reintroduce imperial measures to what? Speed limit signs still show miles per hour, for instance, but champagne can no longer be bought in pints, as Churchill would have had.

And life has gone on nevertheless. What benefits will occur from this new old path?

No idea. The devil is in the detail. I suspect teaching schoolchildren to measure their heights in feet and inches, while using metres for physics lessons, would probably be a good idea but I've not seen any detail of what the government intends, if it intends anything at all: some policies are for announcing, not enacting.

All of my son's friends (12-14 years old) already use feet and inches for their heights. I don't think metric is widely used for that purpose, even among the young.

Leon said:

Malmesbury said:

Burgessian said:

This is quite something. Vladimir Putin's public humiliation of his spy chief at the recent conclave. I hadn't realised quite how contemptuous he is of his apparatchiks. Subtitles provided. Really worth watching.

https://twitter.com/peterliakhov/status/1495851796782362628

The whole thing is reaching SPECTRE levels of WTF....

Also reminiscent of Saddam Hussein in the notorious real-life video where he denounces a terrified traitor in the meeting, who is then dragged off to a grisly fate, AND it reminds me of a movie scene (can’t recall the name) where Al Capone gets a rival publicly whacked - again during a meeting

Suggests Putin has reached gangster/tyrant levels of paranoid omnipotence. The stronger you are, the more afraid you become. Someone will steal The Precious!!

Putin’s downfall might not be far away

🙏

philiph said:

Anabobazina said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Reintroduce imperial measures to what? Speed limit signs still show miles per hour, for instance, but champagne can no longer be bought in pints, as Churchill would have had.

And life has gone on nevertheless. What benefits will occur from this new old path?

No idea. The devil is in the detail. I suspect teaching schoolchildren to measure their heights in feet and inches, while using metres for physics lessons, would probably be a good idea but I've not seen any detail of what the government intends, if it intends anything at all: some policies are for announcing, not enacting.

All of my son's friends (12-14 years old) already use feet and inches for their heights. I don't think metric is widely used for that purpose, even among the young.

There is something about the landmark of 6 ft. To get to 2 m is not so desirable

BartholomewRoberts said:

That so many left-wing Britons are more interested in Putin's enemies that our courts have been sheltering from Putin's persecution, than Putin's allies, speaks volumes about their priorities.

IshmaelZ said:

WhisperingOracle said:

This article, and the associated videos, make Wallace's remarks look more like semi-official chat than private banter, and are also getting a lot of coverage in the Mail, which means they will be read in Russia.

Crazy.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10542729/Ben-Wallace-claims-Putin-gone-tonto-Ukraine-crisis.html

I detect Trussery: profile raising with a view to having a stab at the top job.

Makes him look an arse but doesn't really matter, I don't think being called tonto by a flesh lump in a waistcoat will be what tips Vlad into total war

tlg86 said:

First. There is something seriously wrong with democracy in France if a candidate on c.15% and second place in the polls can't make the starting line.

Surely a deposit system would make more sense. Say, 1m Euros and then you get back 100k for every 0.5% of the vote you get up to 5% when you get it all back.

dixiedean said:

MoonRabbit said:

On topic. I don’t have a bet here. But I like to think a good nose for outside bets. Here it is sniffing for a good deal

.

Firstly as header shows it’s crowded thistime on the right in first round, so whoever comes second might not have a high %. Secondly I know Socialist parties used to win elections, and are now 1% in polls. So where has it gone. Mostly I suspect to Macron and Melenchon.
So for Melrnchon not to sneak into surprise second it needs those lefty’s to stick with Macron in the first round. And maybe they won’t? Macron is sure to progress, but Melechron can be surprise second.

That’s what my nose suggests.

Would laugh myself daft were the right with over 50% of the vote to split itself perfectly three ways.
And end up with Melenchon or Macron as a choice.

Applicant said:

philiph said:

Anabobazina said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Reintroduce imperial measures to what? Speed limit signs still show miles per hour, for instance, but champagne can no longer be bought in pints, as Churchill would have had.

And life has gone on nevertheless. What benefits will occur from this new old path?

No idea. The devil is in the detail. I suspect teaching schoolchildren to measure their heights in feet and inches, while using metres for physics lessons, would probably be a good idea but I've not seen any detail of what the government intends, if it intends anything at all: some policies are for announcing, not enacting.

All of my son's friends (12-14 years old) already use feet and inches for their heights. I don't think metric is widely used for that purpose, even among the young.

There is something about the landmark of 6 ft. To get to 2 m is not so desirable

Feet are just more human-sized. 5 ft is small, 6 ft is a tallish man, 7 ft is a basketball player. Whereas 1 m is a child, 2 m is very tall and 3 m is impossible.

LostPassword said:

tlg86 said:

First. There is something seriously wrong with democracy in France if a candidate on c.15% and second place in the polls can't make the starting line.

Surely a deposit system would make more sense. Say, 1m Euros and then you get back 100k for every 0.5% of the vote you get up to 5% when you get it all back.

This is analogous to the situation with the 2015 Labour leadership election. The system is designed so that the Mayor's exercise a nominating function for the purpose of ensuring that any candidate has that breadth of support from people who themselves have been elected.

The whole point is that if the Mayors collectively don't think a candidate is suitable to be nominated then they can prevent that, regardless of public support.

If public support is sustained then, of course, the candidate would see supportive Mayors elected anyway, but having a nomination threshold is not unusual and serves a purpose separate to raw levels of popular support.

TimT said:

Morris_Dancer said:

We should return to proper money.

Farthings, ha'pennies, pennies, bits, groats, shillings, crowns, marks, pounds, and guineas. Huzzah!

Where's the thruppence, sixpence, florin, and half crown in that list?

As a kid, I found the thruppence was the most satisfying of coins.

darkage said:

"Bristol couple with kids lived apart from each other for years to save up for a house"

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/property/bristol-couple-kids-lived-apart-6603171

Help to buy was presented as the solution, but how can this be anything other than a damning indictment of housing policy?

Flatlander said:

Anabobazina said:

NickyBreakspear said:

CarlottaVance said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Traffic Cones hotline was an important principle - giving voters access to a bureaucracy which before had been untouchable and unaccountable.

This on the other hand, as Malc would say is pure “mince”.

It’s actually a study looking for any benefits of doing it.

I’ll happily do it.

“None”

Invoice attached.

Can I suggest selling petrol and diesel in gallons. We still think about fuel efficiency in miles per gallon - the obvious mixed measure miles per litre does not appear to be well used.

Fair point. I have never grasped why we use mpg for fuel efficiency, yet petrol is advertised in price per litre. Seems completely bonkers even by British standards. I'm quite suspicious of Big Oil so always assumed it was to trick the customer into thinking the fuel was cheaper than it was –– but that's almost certainly a conspiracy theory too far.

Labelling the price per gallon might improve the competition a bit. I know it is irrational, but if the difference is 4.5p per gallon instead of 1p per litre, people might actually notice more.

Though I expect it would be used as an excuse to hide a 10% price hike in the conversion.

Gallowgate said:

I see we are at that point in the PB cycle where @HYUFD is adamant that Le Pen is about to be elected president of France.

C’est la vie

Applicant said:

Cookie said:

Applicant said:

philiph said:

Anabobazina said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kle4 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Tres said:

This idea to reintroduce imperial measures is traffic cone hotlines levels of pathetic from the government.

Reintroduce imperial measures to what? Speed limit signs still show miles per hour, for instance, but champagne can no longer be bought in pints, as Churchill would have had.

And life has gone on nevertheless. What benefits will occur from this new old path?

No idea. The devil is in the detail. I suspect teaching schoolchildren to measure their heights in feet and inches, while using metres for physics lessons, would probably be a good idea but I've not seen any detail of what the government intends, if it intends anything at all: some policies are for announcing, not enacting.

All of my son's friends (12-14 years old) already use feet and inches for their heights. I don't think metric is widely used for that purpose, even among the young.

There is something about the landmark of 6 ft. To get to 2 m is not so desirable

Feet are just more human-sized. 5 ft is small, 6 ft is a tallish man, 7 ft is a basketball player. Whereas 1 m is a child, 2 m is very tall and 3 m is impossible.

Yes, though middle-aged-fogey though I am, feet is the metric unit I am least comfortable with. I can visualise a person being 4', 5', 6', 7' tall - but ask me to visualise a 30' building and I have to mentally translate it to metres. And I can't visualise distance (rather than height) in feet at all. Again, I have to translate into metres (or yards, which is almost the same thing, for mental-picture purposes).
That's just me though - I'm not trying to say one is better than another.

I agree with distance - except that when you get to travel distance, miles over km every time (not least because on long journeys you can hope to average 60mph which makes approximating time from distance trivial).