How different pollsters ask the “best PM” question – politicalbetting.com

kinabalu said:

MoonRabbit said:

kinabalu said:

MoonRabbit said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The Brillo weathervane has spaketh. We're all Carole cat women now.

Are we going to flip on a sixpence from being a centre of excellence for money laundering to being dead against it?

Quite something if so. It would show that Germany isn't the only country that can overturn 30 years worth of deeply ingrained policy in response to what Putin is doing.

It would be another clear-up of the Blair-Cameron era.

Mandelson's announcing that the Labour party was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" summed up the mentality and strategy.

I was never intensely relaxed about him saying that. There was a need to combat the view that Labour were hairshirted sourpusses who couldn't abide the idea of people having a nice meal out now and again, but it wasn't necessary to bend that far on the rhetoric.

Tories: Labour is the party of envy, of jealousy, of levelling down, of spending other people's money, of class hatred, of not letting people enjoy their well-earned riches.

Same Tories: how dare Mandelson say that he is 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich'! Shows that Labour isn't the party of ordinary hard-working people at all.

Yep, the old 'Politics of Envy Class Warrior or Champagne Socialist Hypocrite' dichotomy. And if you somehow avoid either you're 'dull'. There is just no type of Labour that quite passes muster. It's amazing we ever win any elections at all really.

Your recent winning form is about as good as mine on hurdle races.

We had 13 Mandy years and communities levelled down. You may never get a majority again from everyone who remembers it.

Fantasy: embrace the glorious advantages of globalisation says Blair!
Reality: like a Putin peace mission has visited the place, this sums up Labours last rare visit to power in just 2 sentences.

A rather jaundiced (!) take on New Labour. That government surely grows in stature as we gaze back from these days of Boris "Boris" Johnson.

“ A rather jaundiced (!) take on New Labour.”

Really? 😂. I just explained exactly why you keep losing. New Labours rhetoric and promise didn’t match the reality that was happening to UK communities. People remember that, hence you have lost their vote, probably for the rest of their lives.

Well it never matches up, does it. I mean, look at this bunch of chancers in office now - aka the Tories. They were supposed to be "unleashing Britain's potential" and "spreading wealth and opportunity throughout the country". Something a touch stronger than LOL is needed to describe how that's going. So I don't know where this leaves the electorate. Last Labour government disappointed. Latest Tory one a joke. Could they even be desperate enough to vote Lib Dem in large numbers?

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

glw said:

Malmesbury said:

The problem the Russians always had (back to Soviet times) was not so much technology as production of high technology items. They could hand craft a few awesome machines. But that was it. And their economy has de-industrialised since then, in many crucial areas.

They don't have the productive capacity to make lots and lots of high end weapons.

It does remind me of Bill Hicks on the Gulf War.

Once again though, I was watching the CNN man and they blew it all man, all the anxiety. Remember how it started? They kept talking about the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ in these hushed tones, remember that? Like they where the boogieman, you know; “Yeah, we’re doing well, but we have yet to face… …the ‘Elite Republican Guard’.” Yeah, like these guys are ten feet tall, desert warriors; “NEVER LOST A BATTLE!” “WE SHIT BULLETS!” Well, after two and a half months of continuous carpet bombing and not ONE reaction at all from these fuckers, …they became simply the ‘Republican Guard’, not merely as ‘Elite’ as we may have led you to believe. And after one month of continuous bombing not one reaction AT ALL, they went from the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republicans made this shit up about there being guards out there… we hope you enjoyed your firework show.

PJ O'Rourke then asked the question that no-one else did - "These Elite Republican Guards - has anyone checked to see if they are still Republicans?"

Sense O'Rourke becoming the new Man on here - a kind of fusion of Orwell and Wilde.

Gallowgate said:

Will anyone think of the poor bankers?

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

biggles said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

That makes my point for me. If a naked Gavin Williamson is illegal, put a fig leaf on it and carry on whipping.

Going back to my boring original away from your delicious metaphor, UK head of armed forces says that despite knowing, as MarkyMarq pointed out, he knows his own troops are in Ukraine fighting for the right cause alongside trained troops from all over the world - so it’s unfair and naive to give Liz Truss and government stick over their “wink wink nudge nudge. GET OVER THERE” messaging.

Please can we all agree not to conjure up images of a naked Gavin Williamson….

Point of order! I put a fig leaf on it, so that’s no longer naked. Just cheeky…

Incidentally! I did spend a bit of time trawl around the media finding something in support of Gavs K I could link here.

Couldn’t find anything.

glw said:

northern_monkey said:

glw said:

Malmesbury said:

The problem the Russians always had (back to Soviet times) was not so much technology as production of high technology items. They could hand craft a few awesome machines. But that was it. And their economy has de-industrialised since then, in many crucial areas.

They don't have the productive capacity to make lots and lots of high end weapons.

It does remind me of Bill Hicks on the Gulf War.

Once again though, I was watching the CNN man and they blew it all man, all the anxiety. Remember how it started? They kept talking about the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ in these hushed tones, remember that? Like they where the boogieman, you know; “Yeah, we’re doing well, but we have yet to face… …the ‘Elite Republican Guard’.” Yeah, like these guys are ten feet tall, desert warriors; “NEVER LOST A BATTLE!” “WE SHIT BULLETS!” Well, after two and a half months of continuous carpet bombing and not ONE reaction at all from these fuckers, …they became simply the ‘Republican Guard’, not merely as ‘Elite’ as we may have led you to believe. And after one month of continuous bombing not one reaction AT ALL, they went from the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republicans made this shit up about there being guards out there… we hope you enjoyed your firework show.

I saw Bill Hicks late on Channel 4 late one night when I was about 14. Blew me away, thought the man was a genius. Expected to hear a lot more of him.

Which never materialised. In the early internet days it took me a while to learn that Hicks died around the time I turned 16.

Some of his stuff has, inevitably, aged but in so many ways he is still fucking spot on.

Would’ve been good to see Bill eviscerate Trump and contemporary Republicans. I bet he’d have had an interesting take on Woke as well.

He was brilliant, as clever as he was funny. Somewhere I have about 4 of his early tour albums on CD, I used to listen to them a lot, my favourite being Arizona Bay which I would recommend to anyone wanting to discover him.

LostPassword said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

France’s interior minister has accused the British government of showing a “lack of humanity” when it comes to helping the Ukrainian refugees who have fled the Russian invasion and are now waiting in Calais for permission to join their families in the UK.

Hundreds of Ukrainians have come to the northern French port in the last few days in the hope of crossing the Channel so they can be with relatives who are already established in the UK.

According to the French interior minister, Gérald Darmanin, 400 Ukrainian refugees have presented themselves at Calais border crossings in recent days – only for 150 of them to be told to go away and obtain visas at UK consulates in Paris or Brussels.

I thought the whole problem was that it was only limited to those with families in the UK? If they all had relatives established in the UK they should have been admitted.

They still need to get a visa, having proved that they have relatives in the UK, paid the relevant fees and had their biometrics scanned.

A bureaucratic nightmare was created in the before times for the purpose of making it as hard as possible for people to obtain visas, and ministers haven't been able or willing to cut through all the crap to let people get here as simply and easily as possible.

Aslan said:

philiph said:

ClippP said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

MrEd said:

Betting post here. It might be worthwhile putting a few quid on laying Trump for next GOP nominee for 2024 and / or putting some money on other contenders such as DeSantis. Not so much for the rights or wrongs of whether he hasn’t condemned Putin enough, more for the stupidity of his comment that Putin was a “genius”. I think that comment is going to come back to haunt him, ahem, ‘bigly’ in the nomination race, especially if someone takes him on aggressively. DYOR.

I won't because I already have a big (underwater) short on him but I do agree. Trump 2.0 is feeling less and less likely to me.

His rivals need to really piss him off with a Trump style nickname.

Moscow Donnie?

Comrade Trump?

Mini-Putin?

Agent Orange?

The Great Loser?

You're Fired

IMPOTUS

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

state_go_away said:

Doctors get paid more than the average person because they contribute more than the average person to things that matter - its simple really

This doesn't really account for the financial services 'industry' who are handsomely renumerated while being a malignantly destructive to society.

They invest in business which help them to grow, they are pivotal to the economy. Financial services is also high risk, high reward. If you make a lot of money for your firm you get paid a lot in return, if you don't you are out

You must have worked in a different financial services sector to the one I worked in, Hyufd.

I haven't but my father did for about 50 years.

You can make a lot of money in financial services and as a stockbroker or banker if you in turn pull in money. However you are also more likely to lose your job if you don't.

Hence while the average City worker is paid more than the average public sector worker, their job is generally less secure.

There was discussion of GPs pay earlier. Plenty of GPs also make 6 figure salaries like those in financial services but they have more job security as well (albeit they have to do a lot of study and training to get their jobs in the first place)

Ah, so if job security makes the difference I’ll do a deal with you. Most public sector employees would love to get rid of the 20% who are crap at their jobs, but this Government has shown no interest in doing so (every public sector reform since 2010 has been excellent at making good people leave and doing nothing to crap people). If we introduce such a system, can public sector workers get FS pay?

No as by definition the public sector is always taxpayer funded and less prone to the growth or decline of businesses and the market economy as financial services is.

There might be a case for some performance related pay and bonuses in the public sector like financial services in the private sector but generally unions are opposed to them wanting pay to rise equally for all. As unions are much stronger in the public than private sector now it therefore rarely happens

You realise, of course, that automatic pay profession has gone outside of the NHS (and schools?) and “performance related pay” (bonuses too small to motivate but big enough to irritate when badly used) are now the status quo in the public sector? People stuck on the lowest salary point with no prospect of profession so they leave? And your understanding of unions and their relative power is clearly based entirely on Tory party slogans rather than negotiating with them.

It hasn't really for the civil service and much of the NHS and schools and TfL etc they still get annual pay deals with unions involved in negotiations. If unions don't get the pay deals they want for their members they still often go on strike, see especially the RMT and London Underground.

Unions oppose performance related pay on the whole and unions also oppose virtually every job cut. There are no unions in the financial sector however of any real significance, hence pay is more based on performance and bonuses with annual culls of the weakest performers a la Goldman Sachs

Factually wrong on almost every point, save the lack of unions for the trading end of financial services firms, and tinge oddity that is TfL (through train driver pay issues are hardly unique to TfL).

Edit - Oh and you object to unions being involved in negotiating members’ salaries in principle then there really is no hope for you.

Oh no, factually correct on everything. In fact you even agreed with my key points on the lack of unions in the financial sector and the RMT domination of pay negotiations for TfL.

I have no objection to unions being involved in pay negotiations but the price of that will always be pay generally moves up at the same rate for everyone not PRP and bonuses which unions are ideologically opposed to as the higher the PRP bonuses for the best performers, the more the pay cuts and job losses for the weakest performers

Pay in TfL isn’t a problem. Pay of train drivers is, and the market failure is driven by privatisation and a string of poor decisions. Plus, as ever, good luck to a union and it’s members taking what they can get.

You don’t understand public sector pay on any level, or how it relates to the wider economy. But then you are a Tory and the ones who have been in Government for ten years don’t either. Not deluded enough to think Labour would be much better but at least Starmer has some personal experience.

I do. Public sector pay is largely based on average increases for all, private sector pay, especially in the City is much more performance and bonus based. If you make money for your firm then you get a hefty bonus, if you don't you don't and if you continually fail to deliver you lose your job too.

High stakes, high reward but high risk too, that is the City of London and Canary Wharf. If you want to make the big bucks that is generally the best place to go but with the proviso you get less job security

Sigh…. no it isn’t. Outside of one or two hold outs, public sector pay is based on an occasional below inflation hike to the baseline and no way for staff to get off that baseline.

I mean, even your concept of City pay is quite flakey. Outside of a narrow range of roles it pays much like anyone else, even if everyone is a Vice President of something.

Yes it is. Average pay in the City of London for men reached over £100,000 some time ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532521/Average-City-salary-for-a-man-breaks-100000.html

However you also face the fact that if you work for Goldman Sachs for instance they sack the weakest performers every year. No public sector organisation I am aware of does an annual cull of its weakest perfomers in the same fashion, even if your average pay is much lower

Would you like me to explain to you how averages work, the pay structure of most other corporates, and why that news story is completely consistent with my post?

No it is completely inconsistent with your post and proves I was correct.

Average pay in the city of London is far higher than average pay not only across the public sector as a whole but across the private sector as a whole as I just proved.

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

I was curious and found this from ITV:
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said on LBC: "I think actually it's illegal to go and fight in a foreign war these days".
He pointed to the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 which bans Britons from fighting in the "military or naval service of any foreign state" that is at war with a country that the UK is "at peace" with.
"There are certainly laws restricting who you can go and fight for already," he told the radio show.
However, he added: "People fought on various sides of the Spanish Civil war without being penalised when they came back".

williamglenn said:

Guy Faulconbridge
@GuyReuters
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN SAYS U.S. IS TALKING TO EUROPEAN PARTNERS TO LOOK AT THE PROSPECT OF BANNING THE IMPORT OF RUSSIAN OIL

https://twitter.com/GuyReuters/status/1500476931174809602

Aslan said:

Strike at Russian oil refinery because the workers weren't paid:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t7v7mm/its_started_in_russia_in_nizhnekamsk_workers_of/

Tick tock, Vladimir.

kle4 said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1500446360985903107

"Putin tells Erdogan: Kyiv must cease fighting and fulfill all of Moscow’s demands in order for the Russian invasion of Ukraine to stop."

Lol.

I tend to think of Erdogan as the Turkish Putin, but even he wouldn't swallow that.

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

Guy Faulconbridge
@GuyReuters
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN SAYS U.S. IS TALKING TO EUROPEAN PARTNERS TO LOOK AT THE PROSPECT OF BANNING THE IMPORT OF RUSSIAN OIL

https://twitter.com/GuyReuters/status/1500476931174809602

Aslan said:

Strike at Russian oil refinery because the workers weren't paid:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t7v7mm/its_started_in_russia_in_nizhnekamsk_workers_of/

Tick tock, Vladimir.

Looks like events are moving faster than Blinken.

How do people feel about £15 per gallon? (Smug gits with electric cars aside.)

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1500446360985903107

"Putin tells Erdogan: Kyiv must cease fighting and fulfill all of Moscow’s demands in order for the Russian invasion of Ukraine to stop."

Lol.

I tend to think of Erdogan as the Turkish Putin, but even he wouldn't swallow that.

He is probably too busy counting all the money Turkey is getting from the US and others for as many drones as they can make. You can argue whether it was Ngorney Karaback or this war but the 100 year reign of the MBT as king of the battlefield is over. You might as well paint targets on them.

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

Some of us would abolish local Government all together and provide identical services to all residents everywhere, with central government accountable for it…..

In which case we may as well also scrap Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont and the London Mayoralty and Assembly and return everything to Westminster.

It would be a complete reversal of localism, make government far less responsive to local concerns and require a huge transfer of civil servants from local councils to Whitehall control and one national council tax rate. However you are going to do it that is what you would have to do

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

biggles said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

Some of us would abolish local Government all together and provide identical services to all residents everywhere, with central government accountable for it…..

williamglenn said:

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

Guy Faulconbridge
@GuyReuters
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN SAYS U.S. IS TALKING TO EUROPEAN PARTNERS TO LOOK AT THE PROSPECT OF BANNING THE IMPORT OF RUSSIAN OIL

https://twitter.com/GuyReuters/status/1500476931174809602

Aslan said:

Strike at Russian oil refinery because the workers weren't paid:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t7v7mm/its_started_in_russia_in_nizhnekamsk_workers_of/

Tick tock, Vladimir.

Looks like events are moving faster than Blinken.

How do people feel about £15 per gallon? (Smug gits with electric cars aside.)

We've just had a big dress rehearsal of a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption thanks to covid.

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mike Penning, the Tory MP put in charge of Conservative candidate selection for the next general election and a former fireman, promises to seek out candidates who have 'traditional Tory values' and to remove 'closet Liberal Democrats'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/05/conservative-partys-new-mp-selection-chief-promises-choose-people/

Didn't you vote Remain?

Yes but I accepted Brexit and voted for Boris in 2019

nico679 said:

The Pope calls out the Russian lies in his weekly address .

Whilst not religious in any way of all the recent Popes I remember he is by far the best .

kinabalu said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mike Penning, the Tory MP put in charge of Conservative candidate selection for the next general election and a former fireman, promises to seek out candidates who have 'traditional Tory values' and to remove 'closet Liberal Democrats'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/05/conservative-partys-new-mp-selection-chief-promises-choose-people/

Didn't you vote Remain?

H voted Remain because it was the policy of his leader and government at the time. No mystery here.

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

biggles said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

That makes my point for me. If a naked Gavin Williamson is illegal, put a fig leaf on it and carry on whipping.

Going back to my boring original away from your delicious metaphor, UK head of armed forces says that despite knowing, as MarkyMarq pointed out, he knows his own troops are in Ukraine fighting for the right cause alongside trained troops from all over the world - so it’s unfair and naive to give Liz Truss and government stick over their “wink wink nudge nudge. GET OVER THERE” messaging.

Please can we all agree not to conjure up images of a naked Gavin Williamson….

Point of order! I put a fig leaf on it, so that’s no longer naked. Just cheeky…

Incidentally! I did spend a bit of time trawl around the media finding something in support of Gavs K I could link here.

Couldn’t find anything.

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mike Penning, the Tory MP put in charge of Conservative candidate selection for the next general election and a former fireman, promises to seek out candidates who have 'traditional Tory values' and to remove 'closet Liberal Democrats'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/05/conservative-partys-new-mp-selection-chief-promises-choose-people/

Didn't you vote Remain?

Yes but I accepted Brexit and voted for Boris in 2019

Not good enough. You cast a vote to bring about a situation that would now be an absolute anathema to Boris's Tories. Mr Penning needs to assess where you sit on the 'Traditional Tory Values' scale. He will then decide what will become of you.

Like Liz Truss, I am a 'born again Brexiteer.'

I supported both May and Boris' deal and would have voted for both had I been an MP so I expect I will be OK.

I don't think anything I post here really makes me a 'closet LD' either

Malmesbury said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

Some of us would abolish local Government all together and provide identical services to all residents everywhere, with central government accountable for it…..

What about competitive local authorities all the way down to the village council - multiple organisations competing for business?

Competitive government - if your tax office is shit, switch to another one? Your local hospital killing old people? send Granny to the one across the road. St Thickchilds not educating your children? - send them to St WackEms......

Let a thousand, different, flowers bloom....

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mike Penning, the Tory MP put in charge of Conservative candidate selection for the next general election and a former fireman, promises to seek out candidates who have 'traditional Tory values' and to remove 'closet Liberal Democrats'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/05/conservative-partys-new-mp-selection-chief-promises-choose-people/

Didn't you vote Remain?

Yes but I accepted Brexit and voted for Boris in 2019

Not good enough. You cast a vote to bring about a situation that would now be an absolute anathema to Boris's Tories. Mr Penning needs to assess where you sit on the 'Traditional Tory Values' scale. He will then decide what will become of you.

Like Liz Truss, I am a 'born again Brexiteer.'

I supported both May and Boris' deal and would have voted for both had I been an MP so I expect I will be OK.

I don't think anything I post here really makes me a 'closet LD' either

If you are either a liberal or a democrat you have definitely kept it in the closet.

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

HYUFD said:

biggles said:

HYUFD said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

HYUFD said:

Dura_Ace said:

state_go_away said:

Doctors get paid more than the average person because they contribute more than the average person to things that matter - its simple really

This doesn't really account for the financial services 'industry' who are handsomely renumerated while being a malignantly destructive to society.

They invest in business which help them to grow, they are pivotal to the economy. Financial services is also high risk, high reward. If you make a lot of money for your firm you get paid a lot in return, if you don't you are out

You must have worked in a different financial services sector to the one I worked in, Hyufd.

I haven't but my father did for about 50 years.

You can make a lot of money in financial services and as a stockbroker or banker if you in turn pull in money. However you are also more likely to lose your job if you don't.

Hence while the average City worker is paid more than the average public sector worker, their job is generally less secure.

There was discussion of GPs pay earlier. Plenty of GPs also make 6 figure salaries like those in financial services but they have more job security as well (albeit they have to do a lot of study and training to get their jobs in the first place)

Ah, so if job security makes the difference I’ll do a deal with you. Most public sector employees would love to get rid of the 20% who are crap at their jobs, but this Government has shown no interest in doing so (every public sector reform since 2010 has been excellent at making good people leave and doing nothing to crap people). If we introduce such a system, can public sector workers get FS pay?

No as by definition the public sector is always taxpayer funded and less prone to the growth or decline of businesses and the market economy as financial services is.

There might be a case for some performance related pay and bonuses in the public sector like financial services in the private sector and an annual cull of the weakest performers a la Goldman Sachs but generally unions are opposed to them wanting pay to rise equally for all. As unions are much stronger in the public than private sector now it therefore rarely happens

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I think you are confusing elected councillors, who can be replaced, with non elected local government officers, who are officially apolitical and unlikely to be replaced.

Yes but the direction of the council and its policies is set by the councillors and Cabinet, the officers then implement those proposals

Malmesbury said:

rpjs said:

Malmesbury said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

Some of us would abolish local Government all together and provide identical services to all residents everywhere, with central government accountable for it…..

What about competitive local authorities all the way down to the village council - multiple organisations competing for business?

Competitive government - if your tax office is shit, switch to another one? Your local hospital killing old people? send Granny to the one across the road. St Thickchilds not educating your children? - send them to St WackEms......

Let a thousand, different, flowers bloom....

Why shouldn’t that apply to national government too? The idea of non-geographic states has been explored in speculative fiction quite a lot in recent years such as Neal
Stephenson’s Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, and Ada Palmer’s Terra Ignota series.

"Honey, I'm changing our nuclear deterrent"

"Why?"

"Virgn MegaDeath have a special on the 24 month contract - first 12 months are half price and I've done the figures. Still works out cheaper than Britannia Overkill"

kle4 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

I was curious and found this from ITV:
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said on LBC: "I think actually it's illegal to go and fight in a foreign war these days".
He pointed to the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 which bans Britons from fighting in the "military or naval service of any foreign state" that is at war with a country that the UK is "at peace" with.
"There are certainly laws restricting who you can go and fight for already," he told the radio show.
However, he added: "People fought on various sides of the Spanish Civil war without being penalised when they came back".

“These days” citing in the 1870 act? How old is he? 😆

I don't know whether his legislative references are correct or not, but the age of the act is not itself necessarily a sign he is wrong - if the law was sufficient it could have survived through amendment without the act being amended.

rpjs said:

Malmesbury said:

rpjs said:

Malmesbury said:

biggles said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Fairliered said:

Should poorly performing local authorities be permitted to be taken over and run by better performing local authorities, e.g. South Ayrshire taken over by North Ayrshire or Glasgow taken over by East Ayrshire. Who would decide? The Council Tax payers in a ballot?

No, as it is impractical. If voters want a change they can elect a different party to run the council

I'm afraid in some respect you are wrong. A number of councils already collaborate on back office functions such as payroll, council tax collection and professional services such as legal, finance and property management.

An example - one authority has a well developed energy management an procurement team, another does not. The second authority agrees to a merger of the two functions and derives the benefit of the former being able to achieve better energy deals for schools, residential homes etc.

The merging of senior roles is also happening - I know of one County authority whose head of Finance does the same job at one of the District Councils and the two finance functions are effectively merged.

Some of us would abolish local Government all together and provide identical services to all residents everywhere, with central government accountable for it…..

What about competitive local authorities all the way down to the village council - multiple organisations competing for business?

Competitive government - if your tax office is shit, switch to another one? Your local hospital killing old people? send Granny to the one across the road. St Thickchilds not educating your children? - send them to St WackEms......

Let a thousand, different, flowers bloom....

Why shouldn’t that apply to national government too? The idea of non-geographic states has been explored in speculative fiction quite a lot in recent years such as Neal
Stephenson’s Snow Crash and The Diamond Age, and Ada Palmer’s Terra Ignota series.

"Honey, I'm changing our nuclear deterrent"

"Why?"

"Virgn MegaDeath have a special on the 24 month contract - first 12 months are half price and I've done the figures. Still works out cheaper than Britannia Overkill"

Well in Ken MacLeod’s “Fall Revolution” series, the staff of the Russian space port at Baikonur in Kazakhstan declare independence as the “International Scientific and Technical Workers’ Republic” and offer a nuclear umbrella to any country that wants one.

rpjs said:

kle4 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

I was curious and found this from ITV:
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said on LBC: "I think actually it's illegal to go and fight in a foreign war these days".
He pointed to the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 which bans Britons from fighting in the "military or naval service of any foreign state" that is at war with a country that the UK is "at peace" with.
"There are certainly laws restricting who you can go and fight for already," he told the radio show.
However, he added: "People fought on various sides of the Spanish Civil war without being penalised when they came back".

“These days” citing in the 1870 act? How old is he? 😆

I don't know whether his legislative references are correct or not, but the age of the act is not itself necessarily a sign he is wrong - if the law was sufficient it could have survived through amendment without the act being amended.

The oldest act of parliament still partially in force is the Statute of Marlborough from 1267.

StillWaters said:

HYUFD said:

StillWaters said:

Gallowgate said:

Will anyone think of the poor bankers?

Are there any poor bankers?

If they are poor and not making much money they don't stay bankers very long

It takes a minimum of 12-15 years as a banker before you start making life changing amounts of money

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

MoonRabbit said:

kinabalu said:

MoonRabbit said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

another_richard said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The Brillo weathervane has spaketh. We're all Carole cat women now.

Are we going to flip on a sixpence from being a centre of excellence for money laundering to being dead against it?

Quite something if so. It would show that Germany isn't the only country that can overturn 30 years worth of deeply ingrained policy in response to what Putin is doing.

It would be another clear-up of the Blair-Cameron era.

Mandelson's announcing that the Labour party was "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" summed up the mentality and strategy.

I was never intensely relaxed about him saying that. There was a need to combat the view that Labour were hairshirted sourpusses who couldn't abide the idea of people having a nice meal out now and again, but it wasn't necessary to bend that far on the rhetoric.

Tories: Labour is the party of envy, of jealousy, of levelling down, of spending other people's money, of class hatred, of not letting people enjoy their well-earned riches.

Same Tories: how dare Mandelson say that he is 'intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich'! Shows that Labour isn't the party of ordinary hard-working people at all.

Yep, the old 'Politics of Envy Class Warrior or Champagne Socialist Hypocrite' dichotomy. And if you somehow avoid either you're 'dull'. There is just no type of Labour that quite passes muster. It's amazing we ever win any elections at all really.

Your recent winning form is about as good as mine on hurdle races.

We had 13 Mandy years and communities levelled down. You may never get a majority again from everyone who remembers it.

Fantasy: embrace the glorious advantages of globalisation says Blair!
Reality: like a Putin peace mission has visited the place, this sums up Labours last rare visit to power in just 2 sentences.

A rather jaundiced (!) take on New Labour. That government surely grows in stature as we gaze back from these days of Boris "Boris" Johnson.

“ A rather jaundiced (!) take on New Labour.”

Really? 😂. I just explained exactly why you keep losing. New Labours rhetoric and promise didn’t match the reality that was happening to UK communities. People remember that, hence you have lost their vote, probably for the rest of their lives.

Well it never matches up, does it. I mean, look at this bunch of chancers in office now - aka the Tories. They were supposed to be "unleashing Britain's potential" and "spreading wealth and opportunity throughout the country". Something a touch stronger than LOL is needed to describe how that's going. So I don't know where this leaves the electorate. Last Labour government disappointed. Latest Tory one a joke. Could they even be desperate enough to vote Lib Dem in large numbers?

How's it going ?

Well take a trip back to your old home town and you'll see housing estates being built every half mile and full employment for the first time in a working lifetime.

And go to a restaurant while you're there - you'll have more of a choice than the Indian/Chinese/Berni decision that you had when you left for London.

You've mentioned the 'bargain' Blair and Brown struck with the City.

Well it turned out that 'bargain' included a bailout for the London bankers while the rest of the country was left to sink or swim on their own.

The last Labour government didn't disappoint. It betrayed.

state_go_away said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

ydoethur said:

williamglenn said:

Guy Faulconbridge
@GuyReuters
U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN SAYS U.S. IS TALKING TO EUROPEAN PARTNERS TO LOOK AT THE PROSPECT OF BANNING THE IMPORT OF RUSSIAN OIL

https://twitter.com/GuyReuters/status/1500476931174809602

Aslan said:

Strike at Russian oil refinery because the workers weren't paid:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t7v7mm/its_started_in_russia_in_nizhnekamsk_workers_of/

Tick tock, Vladimir.

Looks like events are moving faster than Blinken.

How do people feel about £15 per gallon? (Smug gits with electric cars aside.)

We've just had a big dress rehearsal of a dramatic reduction in fuel consumption thanks to covid.

Well, I suppose we could go down the 'work from home route' again. I doubt however if it will bring fuel prices back under control quite so dramatically as it did in lockdown.

I’m quite surprised that there isn’t a high-profile organisation, pushing hard the environmental benefits of WFH.

Well the Russian army would be better WFH

IshmaelZ said:

kle4 said:

MoonRabbit said:

Chris said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

I was curious and found this from ITV:
Former Brexit Secretary David Davis said on LBC: "I think actually it's illegal to go and fight in a foreign war these days".
He pointed to the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 which bans Britons from fighting in the "military or naval service of any foreign state" that is at war with a country that the UK is "at peace" with.
"There are certainly laws restricting who you can go and fight for already," he told the radio show.
However, he added: "People fought on various sides of the Spanish Civil war without being penalised when they came back".

“These days” citing in the 1870 act? How old is he? 😆

I don't know whether his legislative references are correct or not, but the age of the act is not itself necessarily a sign he is wrong - if the law was sufficient it could have survived through amendment without the act being amended.

It is still in force all right, not so much by being sufficient as by being irrelevant. It is a revision, in response to the Franco prussian war of an 1819 Act in response to goings on in South America. Nobody much seems to have been prosecuted under either.

The point being that "these days" usually implies the speaker remembers a time when things were different

Nigelb said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

biggles said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

That makes my point for me. If a naked Gavin Williamson is illegal, put a fig leaf on it and carry on whipping.

Going back to my boring original away from your delicious metaphor, UK head of armed forces says that despite knowing, as MarkyMarq pointed out, he knows his own troops are in Ukraine fighting for the right cause alongside trained troops from all over the world - so it’s unfair and naive to give Liz Truss and government stick over their “wink wink nudge nudge. GET OVER THERE” messaging.

Please can we all agree not to conjure up images of a naked Gavin Williamson….

Point of order! I put a fig leaf on it, so that’s no longer naked. Just cheeky…

Incidentally! I did spend a bit of time trawl around the media finding something in support of Gavs K I could link here.

Couldn’t find anything.

I though quite a few would be applauding.
It finally and utterly discredits the honours system.

Nigelb said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

biggles said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

That makes my point for me. If a naked Gavin Williamson is illegal, put a fig leaf on it and carry on whipping.

Going back to my boring original away from your delicious metaphor, UK head of armed forces says that despite knowing, as MarkyMarq pointed out, he knows his own troops are in Ukraine fighting for the right cause alongside trained troops from all over the world - so it’s unfair and naive to give Liz Truss and government stick over their “wink wink nudge nudge. GET OVER THERE” messaging.

Please can we all agree not to conjure up images of a naked Gavin Williamson….

Point of order! I put a fig leaf on it, so that’s no longer naked. Just cheeky…

Incidentally! I did spend a bit of time trawl around the media finding something in support of Gavs K I could link here.

Couldn’t find anything.

I though quite a few would be applauding.
It finally and utterly discredits the honours system.

kinabalu said:

Malmesbury said:

glw said:

Malmesbury said:

The problem the Russians always had (back to Soviet times) was not so much technology as production of high technology items. They could hand craft a few awesome machines. But that was it. And their economy has de-industrialised since then, in many crucial areas.

They don't have the productive capacity to make lots and lots of high end weapons.

It does remind me of Bill Hicks on the Gulf War.

Once again though, I was watching the CNN man and they blew it all man, all the anxiety. Remember how it started? They kept talking about the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ in these hushed tones, remember that? Like they where the boogieman, you know; “Yeah, we’re doing well, but we have yet to face… …the ‘Elite Republican Guard’.” Yeah, like these guys are ten feet tall, desert warriors; “NEVER LOST A BATTLE!” “WE SHIT BULLETS!” Well, after two and a half months of continuous carpet bombing and not ONE reaction at all from these fuckers, …they became simply the ‘Republican Guard’, not merely as ‘Elite’ as we may have led you to believe. And after one month of continuous bombing not one reaction AT ALL, they went from the ‘Elite Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republican Guard’ to the ‘Republicans made this shit up about there being guards out there… we hope you enjoyed your firework show.

PJ O'Rourke then asked the question that no-one else did - "These Elite Republican Guards - has anyone checked to see if they are still Republicans?"

Sense O'Rourke becoming the new Man on here - a kind of fusion of Orwell and Wilde.

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

MoonRabbit said:

MoonRabbit said:

biggles said:

MoonRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

MoonRabbit said:

“Defence chief contradicts Liz Truss over idea of Britons going to fight in Ukraine
Sir Tony Radakin says it would be unlawful for individuals to travel to offer military help”

Utter tosh. Liz Truss and the government is right on this, she speaks for the people on this. The people of Ukraine are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY not just for Ukraine, but for the whole of Europe because that’s what President Putin is challenging. And they need real help, not just the rusted unusable junk everyone is praising Germany for sending over. Of course it is something the government in a liberal democracy should trust it’s people to make their own decisions about, they want us to believe in freedom and democracy and that it needs to be fought for or else you lose it don’t they?

Confused mixed messages from military (almost like they want it all over quick) unlike clear message from government. What a proper liberal country is all about isn’t it?

Whether something is popular and whether it is lawful are two different things.

For example, it would be very popular to whip Gavin Williamson naked through the streets of Aylesbury, but it would also be indecent exposure and therefore illegal.

In this case, I do not know whether British nationals are permitted to serve in foreign armies without official approval, but if they are not that might be the point he is making.

That makes my point for me. If a naked Gavin Williamson is illegal, put a fig leaf on it and carry on whipping.

Going back to my boring original away from your delicious metaphor, UK head of armed forces says that despite knowing, as MarkyMarq pointed out, he knows his own troops are in Ukraine fighting for the right cause alongside trained troops from all over the world - so it’s unfair and naive to give Liz Truss and government stick over their “wink wink nudge nudge. GET OVER THERE” messaging.

Please can we all agree not to conjure up images of a naked Gavin Williamson….

Point of order! I put a fig leaf on it, so that’s no longer naked. Just cheeky…

Incidentally! I did spend a bit of time trawl around the media finding something in support of Gavs K I could link here.

Couldn’t find anything.

I though quite a few would be applauding.
It finally and utterly discredits the honours system.

Nicky Morgan was worse than Williamson - astonishingly - and she actually got a peerage.

HYUFD said:

StillWaters said:

HYUFD said:

StillWaters said:

Gallowgate said:

Will anyone think of the poor bankers?

Are there any poor bankers?

If they are poor and not making much money they don't stay bankers very long

It takes a minimum of 12-15 years as a banker before you start making life changing amounts of money

And you will be out well before you have reached that 12-15 year period if you aren't any good at it

StillWaters said:

HYUFD said:

StillWaters said:

HYUFD said:

StillWaters said:

Gallowgate said:

Will anyone think of the poor bankers?

Are there any poor bankers?

If they are poor and not making much money they don't stay bankers very long

It takes a minimum of 12-15 years as a banker before you start making life changing amounts of money

And you will be out well before you have reached that 12-15 year period if you aren't any good at it

Not true. A good analyst may be a crap VP. A weak analyst may be a fantastic Managing Director. They are different roles that require very different skill sets