This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
Off topic - hearing about fuel rationing. Anyone else hearing the same thing?
Lots of rationing rumours swirling about.
Just got the 2CV back on the road via a bent MoT so I am sorted for 60mpg. It would actually pass a legit one but it's an anarchist's duty to undermine the system whenever possible.
Just discovered the lodestar of awful R4 comedies, Angstrom, a satire on Nordic noir and the like; canned laughter, extreme mugging, rotten genre-based puns crowbarred in at every opportunity, it had the lot. Even made me switch off the radio which I'm usually too lazy to do even when Baw Jaws is given yet another opportunity to declaim.
I’m currently wading through hundreds of I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue episodes on Podbean. Been laughing my head off. May as well be evaporated on a high.
We really need more analysis of the short term hit to the Russian economy. The sanctions seem impressive but what will this mean to everyday Russians now?
This long but excellent thread is helpful. Explains how Russia works as a mafia state, menacing others, and lying to itself
‘Let's discuss Russian economy. Many underestimate its dependency upon technological import. Russia's so deeply integrated into Western technological chains that severing these ties will lead to its collapse. Sanctions are already effective and can be made even more efficient🧵’
Much to chew on, but the economic takeaway is that Russia is fucked. What little machinery and tech it does produce is reliant on western (and Chinese) components. It will become seriously poor rather quickly. They might not even be able to maintain oil and gas production
Also makes the point that, as a mafia state reliant on the threat of violence, the Ukraine war was a rational act. It had worked before. But Putin underestimated the western reaction, Ukrainian resistance - and believed the lies told him, about the state of his own army
I've avidly read his output since seeing a reference in a post here. Fascinating and very convincing analysis.
...I am not a political activist, (i.e. I do not participate in meetings at the risk of detention and do not post any anti-war slogans on my FB page), so I am afraid that I do not deserve any praise. Moreover, as most of the Russian educated middle class, I am thinking of emigrating from Russia if the possibility opens up, so if you or your colleagues or your clients are hiring, please let me know).
BBC News Channel just reported that Venezuela is a possible source of extra oil.
Do you think things might be going wrong? A lack of moderation, just action for reactions sake?
We are so fixed on one baddie we are getting blind to making other baddies our allies?
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
A lot of announcements made the last few days are more North Sea Gas and Oil drilling, maybe fracking UK back on agenda, moving away from Russian oil and gas - very soon now there can be a ceasefire, and a deal between Russia and Ukraine - where does that leave these recent announcements? scrapped in favour of Conference of the Parties on climate change? Or not scrapped on basis don’t waste the opportunity of what you wanted to do all along?
Off topic - hearing about fuel rationing. Anyone else hearing the same thing?
For vehicles or ...?
Was told to fill my car up by someone who is well connected.
I posted this earlier on this thread:
“Oil and gold. Yummy.
Top Tip of the Week: fill up every petrol/fuel tank/container/receptacle you can lay you mucky hands on. To the brim. The ride hasn’t even begun yet..”
£1.65 a litre near Braintree yesterday. Admittedly it's always exceptionally high at that particular set of pumps.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't it FDR preferring to listen to Stalin than Churchill which led to forces going NW rather than NE from the top of Italy?
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
I think so but I believe the Trident conference which was just Churchill and Roosevelt was where Overlord was decided upon (an indication that the US was in the driving seat maybe, if there was any doubt). Churchill also had a half baked plan about another front being opened in the Balkans. Pretty sure whatever formulation had taken place Poland would have been hung out to dry.
"Oz Katerji @OzKaterji As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself."
Apparently he addressed them in their own language recently
This is excellent and it makes me proud to think that a British PM is so highly thought of in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Now can we please do something about Patel and the ridiculous obstruction of refugees.
Looks like the cabinet rounded on her to the extent the sponsorship scheme is now under Gove and Richard Harrington (been given a peerage) is in charge of refugees
Indeed what is the point of Patel - expect her to go in an early summer reshuffle
And sounds like Shapps really twisted the knife with requests for detail she couldn’t answer.
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
Not really - we can accelerate some net zero plans to reduce our dependency on Russia but we also need to find other sources of oil and gas for the short to medium term because we can no longer trust Russia.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
Yes, although I would say the LDs actually did do a pretty good squeeze job on the Labour vote in 2019 in most Con vs LD seats. For example Labour lost their deposits in Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham. They need to win over some soft Con voters or at least hope the Tory turnout is lower.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
It was so obvious clear and unarguably a rogue poll, everyone paying any attention to it are merely embarrassing themself. .
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
Not really - we can accelerate some net zero plans to reduce our dependency on Russia but we also need to find other sources of oil and gas for the short to medium term because we can no longer trust Russia.
We should continue to wind turbine up the entire north sea, but it's not TODAY'S problem. Also the lagoons should be revisited. One question though, how do you weld without gas ?
And, moreover, when we now learn that the absurd UK anti-fracking campaign was funded by Russia
Russia has funded anti-fracking groups across Europe, and has successfully got it banned in most of the continent.
It's one of those minor covert acts that I have always regarded as incredibly malicious.
Did they? What did they spend it on? The anti-fracking campaigns that I've seen were run on a shoe-string - typically 2 Green Party members, 3 Nimbys and a big local Facebook effort, vs an over-slick corporate PR effort. All the mainstream party people felt it was a hill they wouldn't choose to die on, so said er, yes, we're agin it too.
Picking this up from earlier, anti-Fracking campaigns had support from companies such as Lush.
Plus time off given to staff to attend demonstrations etc. Their Head of Campaigns Tamsin Omond, who PBers may know from various other disruptions they (she did a pronoun review) have caused, and "Climate Rush", was amongst those arrested.
"Oz Katerji @OzKaterji As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself."
Apparently he addressed them in their own language recently
This is excellent and it makes me proud to think that a British PM is so highly thought of in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Now can we please do something about Patel and the ridiculous obstruction of refugees.
Looks like the cabinet rounded on her to the extent the sponsorship scheme is now under Gove and Richard Harrington (been given a peerage) is in charge of refugees
Indeed what is the point of Patel - expect her to go in an early summer reshuffle
And sounds like Shapps really twisted the knife with requests for detail she couldn’t answer.
Grannt Shapps is running the country now.
Michael Green on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Job share.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
I don't follow you. I'm citing Gorbachev's statement in the interview in the same post: "To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."
I accept that I was overstating it by calling it a guarantee, but continue to think that Gorbachev (and, more relevantly, most Russians) think it was a violation of the spirit of the assurances.
As others have said, Poland and others were free to apply to join NATO anyway, since they weren't party to the assurances. But we were free to decline, since agreeing breached the spirit of our assurances.
One can develop two alternative histories if we had declined: that it would have led to Putin invading them, or that it would have led to a peaceful Europe and no Putin. We can't prove it either way, but I don't think we can blithely disclaim any responsibility. I note that nobody has disputed my other points about our assistance in establishing the Russian kleptocracy.
Apologies for asnyone wanting to continue the discussion, but I need to sign off for a while - I've taken a day off to finish a Danish translation - but I've put my view for what it's worth. I'll try to catch up later on.
Nick, these countries are sovereign countries. It is up to them to decide which blocks they want, or do not want, to be a part of. 'Spirit of out assurances' are very much in the eye of the beholder, and besides, even if it exists, such 'spirit' was made in a very different world, before Putin's many evil acts. And how long should such 'spirit' last? Twenty years? Thirty? A hundred?
If Russia wants these countries to be part of its bloc, then it should make them a better offer. Instead, it is acting like a fascist mafia boss, threatening and fighting them.
To put it bluntly: We have no responsibility for the actions of Russia. Whatever we did, Putin would find excuses to do what he wants.
Russia is in the wrong. We did not 'poke' them into this. Place all your ire, all your anger, on them, not at trying to blame us for Putin's evil.
Off topic - hearing about fuel rationing. Anyone else hearing the same thing?
For vehicles or ...?
Was told to fill my car up by someone who is well connected.
I posted this earlier on this thread:
“Oil and gold. Yummy.
Top Tip of the Week: fill up every petrol/fuel tank/container/receptacle you can lay you mucky hands on. To the brim. The ride hasn’t even begun yet..”
Just put in an order for heating oil. Normally 2-3 days delivery. Now week commencing 28th. Price to be advised a couple of days before delivery. Hmmmm.....
BBC News Channel just reported that Venezuela is a possible source of extra oil.
Do you think things might be going wrong? A lack of moderation, just action for reactions sake?
We are so fixed on one baddie we are getting blind to making other baddies our allies?
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
A lot of announcements made the last few days are more North Sea Gas and Oil drilling, maybe fracking UK back on agenda, moving away from Russian oil and gas - very soon now there can be a ceasefire, and a deal between Russia and Ukraine - where does that leave these recent announcements? scrapped in favour of Conference of the Parties on climate change? Or not scrapped on basis don’t waste the opportunity of what you wanted to do all along?
I'm not sure of sanctions will work since they normally don't but it's definitely right to prioritize. Ultimately the US doesn't have that much influence on countries' internal human rights situation. If they have leverage to spare then it might be good to exercise it but if you've got a nation state invading democracies then it makes sense to bury the hatchet with second-tier enemies that are confining their evil to their own borders.
On climate change I can't think of anything governments have ever done that will have as much impact as disrupting fossil fuels supplies like this.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
Not really - we can accelerate some net zero plans to reduce our dependency on Russia but we also need to find other sources of oil and gas for the short to medium term because we can no longer trust Russia.
We should continue to wind turbine up the entire north sea, but it's not TODAY'S problem. Also the lagoons should be revisited. One question though, how do you weld without gas ?
There are many different welding gases, including ones such as carbon dioxide or helium (these are not burnt, but help keep air away from the weld AFAIUI). Natural gas does not generate enough heat for welding. Acetylene does.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
Point (1) is incorrect as others have pointed out. Those countries were the victims of Russian aggression. Entirely appropriate for them to seek protection. Russia likes to think of itself as a victim. Sometimes it has been. But more often it has been the aggressor - both internally and externally. That is what they won't accept. And until they do there can be little real peace with them. Because they delude themselves about what sort of country they are and how others see them.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
Mr. Divvie, wasn't it FDR preferring to listen to Stalin than Churchill which led to forces going NW rather than NE from the top of Italy?
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
I think so but I believe the Trident conference which was just Churchill and Roosevelt was where Overlord was decided upon (an indication that the US was in the driving seat maybe, if there was any doubt). Churchill also had a half baked plan about another front being opened in the Balkans. Pretty sure whatever formulation had taken place Poland would have been hung out to dry.
Fitzroy Maclean to Churchill in 1944 odd: I am concerned about the way internal politics are going in Yugoslavia...
Churchill: Do you intend to make Yugoslavia your home after the war?
@CBSNews A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
We really need more analysis of the short term hit to the Russian economy. The sanctions seem impressive but what will this mean to everyday Russians now?
This long but excellent thread is helpful. Explains how Russia works as a mafia state, menacing others, and lying to itself
‘Let's discuss Russian economy. Many underestimate its dependency upon technological import. Russia's so deeply integrated into Western technological chains that severing these ties will lead to its collapse. Sanctions are already effective and can be made even more efficient🧵’
Much to chew on, but the economic takeaway is that Russia is fucked. What little machinery and tech it does produce is reliant on western (and Chinese) components. It will become seriously poor rather quickly. They might not even be able to maintain oil and gas production
Also makes the point that, as a mafia state reliant on the threat of violence, the Ukraine war was a rational act. It had worked before. But Putin underestimated the western reaction, Ukrainian resistance - and believed the lies told him, about the state of his own army
I've avidly read his output since seeing a reference in a post here. Fascinating and very convincing analysis.
That is a great thread, well worth reading.
But why the hell do people use Twitter to post such stuff, it is completely unsuited to such long posts.
@CBSNews A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid it is true ... I have donated to Ukrainian relief but I would donate again, and probably more, to a fund specifically dedicated to weaponry. I wanna crowdfund a NLAW.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
Interesting reading. Edit: I note that it also says "It is important to note that the law in the UK treats the terms sex and gender as interchangeable. "
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
No.
The drive to renewables will be accelerated for reasons of availability, cost and energy security - as well as the original reason of saving the planet.
Developing new fossil fuel sources may happen a bit. Because the planning and payback horizons are too long to deal with an immediate gap that will disappear in the medium term, it is likely to be limited.
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
No.
The drive to renewables will be accelerated for reasons of availability, cost and energy security - as well as the original reason of saving the planet.
Developing new fossil fuel sources may happen a bit. Because the planning and payback horizons are too long to deal with an immediate gap that will disappear in the medium term, it is likely to be limited.
Do expect the rhetoric to change though.
Be interestding to see what happens with food security as well, rather than the current Brexiter policy of bankrupting UK farming in favour of e.g. Australian stock ranching.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
Interesting reading.
So this person is a woman then?
To be honest, all that really matters is this:
Does the person have male anatomy? If so, they should be treated as a male when it comes to things like prison.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
Yes, although I would say the LDs actually did do a pretty good squeeze job on the Labour vote in 2019 in most Con vs LD seats. For example Labour lost their deposits in Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham. They need to win over some soft Con voters or at least hope the Tory turnout is lower.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
I think the LDs will win Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham at the next general election even if the Tories are re elected with a small majority.
I agree though, post Brexit the LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest to wealthy Remain areas with lots of graduates in South West London and the Home Counties.
Where the LDs still do very well in the Southwest eg Remain voting Cheltenham and Bath, demographically those areas are more similar to Surrey and Oxfordshire than old LD heartlands like Cornwall anyway
@CBSNews A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid it is true ... I have donated to Ukrainian relief but I would donate again, and probably more, to a fund specifically dedicated to weaponry. I wanna crowdfund a NLAW.
If we crowd fund our own stuff do we get a sticker on the side?
“This bazooka was bought for you by PB.com. Enjoy!”
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
Nick just to say your posts on this crisis have been imo absolutely spot on and insightful these past days and weeks and this is another one such.
Edit: I am not a million miles off saluting your indefatifability.
I agree. I've just been reading about the 1993 constitutional crisis, in Fiona Hill's biography of Putin. Theres a lot of stuff I just don't know or somehow skipped over.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
Interesting reading.
So this person is a woman then?
To be honest, all that really matters is this:
Does the person have male anatomy? If so, they should be treated as a male when it comes to things like prison.
Other than that, who really cares?
Indeed.
I have no idea what anatomy that person has, but no one in their right mind would try treating him as a woman.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
Rather pointless posting that, Mr Dickson. Lib Dem support is currently decidedly patchy - everybody knows that. Weak in some places, but very strong in others. That is why, as I understand it, the Labour leadership has decided to concentrate its resources on its own areas of strength, and not fight fiercely where it is the Lib Dems who are the main challengers to the sitting Tories.
Israeli officials saying there may be a softening of positions on both sides. Ukraine with regards to Nato and Russia saying it merely wants to demilitarise Donbass.
@CBSNews A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid it is true ... I have donated to Ukrainian relief but I would donate again, and probably more, to a fund specifically dedicated to weaponry. I wanna crowdfund a NLAW.
If we crowd fund our own stuff do we get a sticker on the side?
“This bazooka was bought for you by PB.com. Enjoy!”
If you donate directly to the Ukrainian government it goes to the army. So a distinct chance it will be used to buy weapons.
Ben Wallace just announced there is to be a joint meeting immediately after this debate with the defence -home and foreign office to coordinate the refugees issue
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
Interesting reading.
So this person is a woman then?
To be honest, all that really matters is this:
Does the person have male anatomy? If so, they should be treated as a male when it comes to things like prison.
Other than that, who really cares?
Indeed.
I have no idea what anatomy that person has, but no one in their right mind would try treating him as a woman.
Yeah, there's all that nonsense about "chest feeding", but presumably he doesn't want to get pregnant because men don't do that.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't it FDR preferring to listen to Stalin than Churchill which led to forces going NW rather than NE from the top of Italy?
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
I think so but I believe the Trident conference which was just Churchill and Roosevelt was where Overlord was decided upon (an indication that the US was in the driving seat maybe, if there was any doubt). Churchill also had a half baked plan about another front being opened in the Balkans. Pretty sure whatever formulation had taken place Poland would have been hung out to dry.
Fitzroy Maclean to Churchill in 1944 odd: I am concerned about the way internal politics are going in Yugoslavia...
Churchill: Do you intend to make Yugoslavia your home after the war?
Ironically I think Maclean may have spent some of his life in Yugolsavia after the war, I read on Wiki that Tito gave him permission to buy a house on a Dalmatian island. It's a while since I read Eastern Approaches, did Maclean encounter Waugh and Randolph on his Balkan travels?
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
Yes, although I would say the LDs actually did do a pretty good squeeze job on the Labour vote in 2019 in most Con vs LD seats. For example Labour lost their deposits in Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham. They need to win over some soft Con voters or at least hope the Tory turnout is lower.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
I think the LDs will win Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham at the next general election even if the Tories are re elected with a small majority.
I agree though, post Brexit the LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest to wealthy Remain areas with lots of graduates in South West London and the Home Counties.
Where the LDs still do very well in the Southwest eg Remain voting Cheltenham and Bath, demographically those areas are more similar to Surrey and Oxfordshire than old LD heartlands like Cornwall anyway
“ LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest “ 😂
Posts a keeper till after those May elections. In fact why stop there, might keep this post forever.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
(2) We made a deliberate decision to "support the crooks over the commies" actively supporting Yeltsin and the oligarchs without any illusions about what they were like. When the Russian Parliament was blasted into surrender by tank fire, we basically were fine with it, because we didn't like the Parliament opposing Yeltsin. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis for an even-handed account.)
(3) We facilitated the subsequent system of systematic corruption and flight of capital by offering tax havens, property opportunities and any number of other ways for oligarchs to take money out of Russia for their personal benefit. Britain was particularly enthusiastic about it, because London is a world centre for money-laundering.
(4) Numerous political parties built flourishing relationships with Russian billionaires, trading massive campaign financing for access and helpful financial regimes. We think of it as just the Tories, but every major Western country has similar stories to tell.
We primarily look after our interests, and ultimately are not too bothered if someone somewhere else is getting ripped off. Most governments are like that all over the world. But sometimes the short-termism damages us as well. I'd contrast that with what Germany did after reunification - they threw money at bringing up East Germany's standard of living, and made no attempt to exploit their vulnerability. The result, by and large, was that the former GDR has become a reasonably prosperous, reasonably liberal place with no serious movement to bring back the old days.
The use of the word “guaranteed” in (1) is questionable. Anyway, Russia shouldn’t get a say in the choices of former Warsaw Pact countries. The UK doesn’t get to determine the military alliances of Kenya or India. Why should Russia get to determine the military alliances of its former empire?
(2)-(4) are much more to do with Russia being screwed by its own leaders than about the West. We made some bad choices at times, but we were not intervening in Russia’s internal affairs. NATO tanks didn’t fire on the Russian Parliament.
If, say, the West had chosen to not engage with Russia’s ruling class, not do (3) and (4), people would be complaining now that the West shut Russia out! It is always difficult when another country has a corrupt &/or totalitarian regime. Do you cut off contact with that country or do you maintain some engagement? We should’ve have been stricter about money flowing through London. Western parties should’ve been more cautious about cosying up to oligarchs. But, fundamentally, the problem was and is with Russia’s rulers, not with our response to them. Putin would still be there without (3) and (4).
I think the fairer criticism of the West is our role in the failed transition from communism to a free market economy. (Cf. Lea Ypi’s “Free”.) A lot of Western advisers and institutions proposed an approach that didn’t work and allowed the oligarchs to become so rich and powerful.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
Rather pointless posting that, Mr Dickson. Lib Dem support is currently decidedly patchy - everybody knows that. Weak in some places, but very strong in others. That is why, as I understand it, the Labour leadership has decided to concentrate its resources on its own areas of strength, and not fight fiercely where it is the Lib Dems who are the main challengers to the sitting Tories.
Exactly, Labour would not be that bothered if they were only polling 20% in the South, if they were polling over 40% in London, the Midlands and Wales and North where their target seats mainly are.
Similarly the LDs would not be that bothered if they were polling only 5% in the Midlands and Wales and North as long as they were polling 10-20% in the South where their target seats mainly are
"Oz Katerji @OzKaterji As someone who has been a fierce critic of Boris Johnson for a long time, it must be said, as far as Ukrainians I speak to are concerned, he is the best ally Ukraine has. I honestly take no pleasure in reporting this but it’s indisputably true. Come here & ask people yourself."
We had a good thing going with the oligarchs and Putin was their leader. They sent us oil, gas and raw materials and we sent them cash. Except the cash never actually left our shores. It was just a book-keeping entry enabling them to travel to the west and buy mansions, yachts, planes, supercars, football clubs - the whole vulgar shopping list.
The losers were obviously the Russian people. But who cares about them? They're used to it, after all.
Then for some reason Putin decides to upset the applecart and become a nationalist revanchist instead of a cynical pragmatist. Why? Some seismic fracture must have occurred to drive a wedge between the oligarchs. What was it?
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
Yes, although I would say the LDs actually did do a pretty good squeeze job on the Labour vote in 2019 in most Con vs LD seats. For example Labour lost their deposits in Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham. They need to win over some soft Con voters or at least hope the Tory turnout is lower.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
I think the LDs will win Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham at the next general election even if the Tories are re elected with a small majority.
I agree though, post Brexit the LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest to wealthy Remain areas with lots of graduates in South West London and the Home Counties.
Where the LDs still do very well in the Southwest eg Remain voting Cheltenham and Bath, demographically those areas are more similar to Surrey and Oxfordshire than old LD heartlands like Cornwall anyway
Agree with that. The LDs will be competitive in seats which voted Remain where there are a lot of graduates and where they were in 2nd place at GE2019. The big plus next time is that Corbyn is no longer LAB leader
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
Yes.
No.
The drive to renewables will be accelerated for reasons of availability, cost and energy security - as well as the original reason of saving the planet.
Developing new fossil fuel sources may happen a bit. Because the planning and payback horizons are too long to deal with an immediate gap that will disappear in the medium term, it is likely to be limited.
Do expect the rhetoric to change though.
To put it another way.
The immediate requirement is to substitute Russian oil and gas. In the medium term this will be achieved through mostly indigenous renewable sources. Whether Net Zero is a side effect of the Russia policy, or vice versa, doesn't really matter
In the interim we will need to find other fossil fuel sources to substitute for Russian ones, but these will be mostly existing sources and non UK.
We had a good thing going with the oligarchs and Putin was their leader. They sent us oil, gas and raw materials and we sent them cash. Except the cash never actually left our shores. It was just a book-keeping entry enabling them to travel to the west and buy mansions, yachts, planes, supercars, football clubs - the whole vulgar shopping list.
The losers were obviously the Russian people. But who cares about them? They're used to it, after all.
Then for some reason Putin decides to upset the applecart and become a nationalist revanchist instead of a cynical pragmatist. Why? Some seismic fracture must have occurred to drive a wedge between the oligarchs. What was it?
Perhaps he was just always a nationalist revanchist and the whole money making scheme was to fund his demented dreams?
Israeli officials saying there may be a softening of positions on both sides. Ukraine with regards to Nato and Russia saying it merely wants to demilitarise Donbass.
Mr. Divvie, wasn't it FDR preferring to listen to Stalin than Churchill which led to forces going NW rather than NE from the top of Italy?
Not my time period, so could be wrong, but that was my understanding.
I think so but I believe the Trident conference which was just Churchill and Roosevelt was where Overlord was decided upon (an indication that the US was in the driving seat maybe, if there was any doubt). Churchill also had a half baked plan about another front being opened in the Balkans. Pretty sure whatever formulation had taken place Poland would have been hung out to dry.
Fitzroy Maclean to Churchill in 1944 odd: I am concerned about the way internal politics are going in Yugoslavia...
Churchill: Do you intend to make Yugoslavia your home after the war?
Ironically I think Maclean may have spent some of his life in Yugolsavia after the war, I read on Wiki that Tito gave him permission to buy a house on a Dalmatian island. It's a while since I read Eastern Approaches, did Maclean encounter Waugh and Randolph on his Balkan travels?
I think they were part of his outfit. I imagine he thought they were tossers but I don't remember them being named in EA.
@CBSNews A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
I hate to say this, but I'm afraid it is true ... I have donated to Ukrainian relief but I would donate again, and probably more, to a fund specifically dedicated to weaponry. I wanna crowdfund a NLAW.
Fighting like this in Sumy impresses me. It is less than 20 miles from the Russian border, on a strategic route, so an important target, and yet after 2 weeks showing no sign of falling. Those spearheads are not going to be getting their supplies.
Worldle (https://worldle.teuteuf.fr/) was very easy yesterday but tougher today. I was pleasantly surprised to get it in one go.
As a game what it shows time and time again is that the more round a country is, the harder it is to identify. (With the probably exception of the very round but easy to spot Romania).
I think hoping for a new direction for Russia even if Putin goes is unlikely.
The vast majority of Russians are nationalist and authoritarian, at the last Presidential election 77% voted for Putin and in second place with 11% was the candidate of the Communist Party.
There are few liberals and outside of the most wealthy parts of St Petersburg and Moscow far more Russians are deeply suspicious of the West and NATO expansion and in favour of the theory if a greater Russia than opposed.
The best that can be hoped for for now is that Russia can be pushed back to the most pro Russian Dombas region of Ukraine while the majority of the country manages to fight off the Russian advance and retain its independence
Aren't you missing the fact that there were no free and fair elections in Russia?
Putin would probably still have been elected with free and fair elections, although it would have been a lot closer. That seems to be the consensus of the articles I've read on the subject.
Its often said, but I think Kasparov for one has pointed out it's a nonsense suggestion - Putin hasn't risked that so its impossible to know if he truly would have managed it. He definitely has popularity, but the 'hed have won anyway' is unknowable.
We had a good thing going with the oligarchs and Putin was their leader. They sent us oil, gas and raw materials and we sent them cash. Except the cash never actually left our shores. It was just a book-keeping entry enabling them to travel to the west and buy mansions, yachts, planes, supercars, football clubs - the whole vulgar shopping list.
The losers were obviously the Russian people. But who cares about them? They're used to it, after all.
Then for some reason Putin decides to upset the applecart and become a nationalist revanchist instead of a cynical pragmatist. Why? Some seismic fracture must have occurred to drive a wedge between the oligarchs. What was it?
You’ve said in a couple of paragraphs what Palmer was trying to say in 300 paragraphs. No wonder the man doesn’t have time for his Danish translation. Windbag politicians…
East Midlands - 7.8% London - 14.9% North East - 6.8% North West - 7.9% Scotland - 9.5% South East - 18.2% South West - 18.2% Wales - 6.0% West Midlands - 7.9% Yorkshire and The Humber - 8.1% East of England - 13.4%
I think hoping for a new direction for Russia even if Putin goes is unlikely.
The vast majority of Russians are nationalist and authoritarian, at the last Presidential election 77% voted for Putin and in second place with 11% was the candidate of the Communist Party.
There are few liberals and outside of the most wealthy parts of St Petersburg and Moscow far more Russians are deeply suspicious of the West and NATO expansion and in favour of the theory if a greater Russia than opposed.
The best that can be hoped for for now is that Russia can be pushed back to the most pro Russian Dombas region of Ukraine while the majority of the country manages to fight off the Russian advance and retain its independence
Aren't you missing the fact that there were no free and fair elections in Russia?
Putin would probably still have been elected with free and fair elections, although it would have been a lot closer. That seems to be the consensus of the articles I've read on the subject.
Its often said, but I think Kasparov for one has pointed out it's a nonsense suggestion - Putib hasn't risked that donuts impossible to know if he truly would have managed it. He definitely has popularity, but the 'hed have won anyway' is unknowable.
'Putib hasn't risked that donuts impossible' strong candidate for best autocorrect of the day,
I don't think VVP's position is remotely under threat. He gets to define what victory is and can therefore declare it at any time.
It is interesting how he never says shit about Turkey who are providing more help than anybody outside the US. TuAF have regular A400M movements between Ankara and Rzesow in Poland to bring more TB2s and MAM-Ls.
I suspect Putin is playing what he thinks is the long game with Erdogan where despite certain rivalries, not least in Syria, he can get into a partnership similar to the one he has with Xi Jinping, this time covering Western Asia and parts of South Europe.
Putin's objectives for Ukraine are clear, as he has spoken and written at length about them. I don't see any reason not to take his words at face value. In summary:
1. Keep Ukraine in 2. Keep the West out 3. Eliminate any Ukrainian identity that is independent from Russia.
I am sure he's serious about those objectives. He believes he's dealing with with real problems, but as far as I can tell doesn't realise he himself created the problems noted above.
So we have someone who sees his role as a destiny. Absolutely everything is sacrificed for his strategic objectives yet the place is run opportunistically as a Mafia operation.
Israeli officials saying there may be a softening of positions on both sides. Ukraine with regards to Nato and Russia saying it merely wants to demilitarise Donbass.
Might suit both Russia and Ukraine / the West for the conflict to stop quite soon and be negotiated out. For Eastern Europe, if it stops now it will be remembered like the winter war, a salutary lesson to Russia not to get over-confident and a deterrent against future adventures. It also means most of Ukraine remains intact or at least rebuildable. For Russia it ends before too many body bags return home and public disillusionment ratchets up, and gives them the chance to say "job done". For the wider West it stops us short of entering into a wider potentially nuclear war, and gives us time and space to phase out economic dependence on Russian commodities.
Extinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security.
The justification?
"The Ukraine conflict and the climate crisis have the same underlying cause: the imperialist pursuit of land and resources for profit, concentrating power in the hands of toxic individuals and corporations."
Getting off fossil fuels is a good long-term solution, but we need more domestic hydrocarbons not less for the transition, instead of relying upon Russian and Middle Eastern exports.
These idiots would never go and protest in Russia.
The problem is really just that XR want everything to be very simple, do X, dont do Y and everything else is subordinate to that.
Problem is that life just isnt that simple. Yes that is also used as an excuse to do nothing but it's still true. Sometimes you need slightly counterintuitive options to realise a larger goal.
Israeli officials saying there may be a softening of positions on both sides. Ukraine with regards to Nato and Russia saying it merely wants to demilitarise Donbass.
Might suit both Russia and Ukraine / the West for the conflict to stop quite soon and be negotiated out. For Eastern Europe, if it stops now it will be remembered like the winter war, a salutary lesson to Russia not to get over-confident and a deterrent against future adventures. It also means most of Ukraine remains intact or at least rebuildable. For Russia it ends before too many body bags return home and public disillusionment ratchets up, and gives them the chance to say "job done". For the wider West it stops us short of entering into a wider potentially nuclear war, and gives us time and space to phase out economic dependence on Russian commodities.
"stops short of entering into a wider potentially nuclear war"
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
What utter bollocks. The Equality Act 2010 refers to sex. If Labour are in favour of it then they need to engage with what that term means and that there is a female sex consisting of women. For a Labour MP, ostensibly in favour of equality for women, to refuse to answer this question gives no confidence that they will stand up for the existing rights of women and rights for women more generally.
This morning you told the British public you literally can't define what a woman is. What's the plan, lift up random objects until you find one that rattles?
Cooper's is the correct response. You have a bunch of people using a word in subtly different ways in subtly different contexts and trying really hard not to see the other people's point of view. If you use it in one of the ways they don't themselves use they get really, really angry. So STFU.
This whole debate is a fruitless distraction from the real inequalities that women still face. I went to a work dinner last night *on International Women's Day* at which there were 18 men and no women, unless you count the ones serving the food.
I've worked in mixed gender teams for the last 13 years, and the majority of my managers have been women. My current team was, at one point, entirely female apart from me. It hasn't been a problem for me at all. But I think it is evidence that, in some areas, women are simply not an oppressed minority in the workplace and to carry on with this narrative is divisive and counter productive. The remaining pockets of sexism and misogyny should be tackled, but under the banner of gender equality, rather than through perpetrating the idea that all of society is inherently sexist.
Women are not oppressed, discriminated against or sexually assaulted because of their gender. But because of their sex. It is sexual equality which is needed.
Fear not, a chap will be along to put you right shortly.
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
Interesting reading.
So this person is a woman then?
To be honest, all that really matters is this:
Does the person have male anatomy? If so, they should be treated as a male when it comes to things like prison.
Other than that, who really cares?
In sports I think “what sex was the person when they went through puberty?” should be the defining criterion. Otherwise we’re going to make a nonsense of “women’s sports” with natal males who have transitioned dominating sports that require physical strength. Muscle strength isn’t a “social construct”.
Iasi airport in Romania absolutely packed with Ukrainian refugees taking flights to Bucharest, Dublin, Vienna, Warsaw. The only flight not full with Ukrainians is the one to London Luton, because they wouldn’t be allowed on without visas. Feels quite shameful as a Brit. https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1501529331125919746
I don't think VVP's position is remotely under threat. He gets to define what victory is and can therefore declare it at any time.
It is interesting how he never says shit about Turkey who are providing more help than anybody outside the US. TuAF have regular A400M movements between Ankara and Rzesow in Poland to bring more TB2s and MAM-Ls.
I suspect Putin is playing what he thinks is the long game with Erdogan where despite certain rivalries, not least in Syria, he can get into a partnership similar to the one he has with Xi Jinping, this time covering Western Asia and parts of South Europe.
Putin's objectives for Ukraine are clear, as he has spoken and written at length about them. I don't see any reason not to take his words at face value. In summary:
1. Keep Ukraine in 2. Keep the West out 3. Eliminate any Ukrainian identity that is independent from Russia.
I am sure he's serious about those objectives. He believes he's dealing with with real problems, but as far as I can tell doesn't realise he himself created the problems noted above.
So we have someone who sees his role as a destiny. Absolutely everything is sacrificed for his strategic objectives yet the place is run opportunistically as a Mafia operation.
The 'hard' problem is this: it is not all about Putin. His leadership and regime is supported by a vast majority. What we are seeing is in part the will of the people. In the end, the will and resolve of its people, and their imperial delusions and claims over large parts of Europe, have to be broken. I think it is an error to think that this is necessarily over if/when Putin and Lavrov get removed.
I am very pessimistic. I doubt that even this proposal would work. Russia and its delusions need to be defeated and be seen to be defeated, if there is to be even a chance of a reset. But how on earth is that going to happen?
I fear that Russia will retreat into its Stalinist past, Ukraine will be destroyed in the way that Syria was destroyed, people will die in the most appalling circumstances and those who have got out will stay out for much longer than we or they anticipate.
It will be a new Cold War and we will be lucky if the hot war in Ukraine does not extend elsewhere.
I mainly wrote this to see if there was any possible way out and in response to the discussion the other day about possible solutions over Crimea etc.
To cheer myself up even further, given that Sellafield and BaE are not a million miles from where I'm living, we're certainly prime targets for a nuclear strike. Still, better than surviving in an irradiated wasteland I suppose.
More generally, when the USSR broke up, the West simply assumed the boundaries of the SSRs should be the boundaries of the completely new countries.
This created war in Armenia & Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, war in Georgia over Ossetia & Abkhasia, war in Russia over Chechnya, war in Moldova over Transnistria, war in Ukraine over Crimea/Donbas,
Many of these ethnic conflicts long predated the USSR or even Imperial Russia. The wars did not happen just because of Russian meddling, though that did exacerbate them.
The boundary disputes should all have been resolved by UN plebiscites. We are now going to pay a very heavy price for not insisting on this simple point much earlier.
It should be a condition of NATO membership/EU membership that boundary disputes are resolved by calling plebiscites.
Minority ethnic groups can call for border polls in disputed areas & the polls are carried out with independent observers (much like the settlement in N. Ireland in the Good Friday Agreement).
Arguments about boundaries in Eastern Europe created WW1 and WW2. On our present trajectory, we are going for the hat trick.
Ukraine had a plebiscite. Every region voted for independence from Russia. In the Donbass, 81% voted for independence.
We have to pretend that never happened for some reason.
Russia has been screwed in multiple ways over the last 20 years, notably by its own leaders but also by the West
In what way, specifically?
(1) We guaranteed that if Russia didn't try to obstruct the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Europe joining the EU, we wouldn't seek to move NATO up to Russia's borders. At the first opportunity, we did exactly that.
That's Putin's version - not Gorbachev's:
The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
You're right, "guarantee" was putting it too strongly. But Gorbachev does feel it violated the spirit of the assurances, and I believe him too. And I think it was extremely short-sighted, since it fed the paranoia of people who are genuinely our enemies, while undermining people who wanted to build a friendly relationship.
Any evidence to back up your statement? It feels like you are putting words into Gorbachev's mouth to back up a statement that has since been proven to be wrong...
I don't follow you. I'm citing Gorbachev's statement in the interview in the same post: "To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement."
I accept that I was overstating it by calling it a guarantee, but continue to think that Gorbachev (and, more relevantly, most Russians) think it was a violation of the spirit of the assurances.
As others have said, Poland and others were free to apply to join NATO anyway, since they weren't party to the assurances. But we were free to decline, since agreeing breached the spirit of our assurances.
One can develop two alternative histories if we had declined: that it would have led to Putin invading them, or that it would have led to a peaceful Europe and no Putin. We can't prove it either way, but I don't think we can blithely disclaim any responsibility. I note that nobody has disputed my other points about our assistance in establishing the Russian kleptocracy.
Apologies for asnyone wanting to continue the discussion, but I need to sign off for a while - I've taken a day off to finish a Danish translation - but I've put my view for what it's worth. I'll try to catch up later on.
Nick, these countries are sovereign countries. It is up to them to decide which blocks they want, or do not want, to be a part of. 'Spirit of out assurances' are very much in the eye of the beholder, and besides, even if it exists, such 'spirit' was made in a very different world, before Putin's many evil acts. And how long should such 'spirit' last? Twenty years? Thirty? A hundred?
If Russia wants these countries to be part of its bloc, then it should make them a better offer. Instead, it is acting like a fascist mafia boss, threatening and fighting them.
To put it bluntly: We have no responsibility for the actions of Russia. Whatever we did, Putin would find excuses to do what he wants.
Russia is in the wrong. We did not 'poke' them into this. Place all your ire, all your anger, on them, not at trying to blame us for Putin's evil.
Yes, in this issue I'm afraid in an attempt to be reasonable Nick actually lapses worryingly close to some Kremlin talking points . Its misplaced complication and certainly has no intent to go that way, but it's the inevitable conclusion of some of the points.
Extinction Rebellion have said they're planning a new wave of protests to cause "maximum nonviolent disruption" at UK oil refineries next month.
Comes amid reports that average energy bills could hit £4,000 this year and concerns about Britain's energy security.
The justification?
"The Ukraine conflict and the climate crisis have the same underlying cause: the imperialist pursuit of land and resources for profit, concentrating power in the hands of toxic individuals and corporations."
Getting off fossil fuels is a good long-term solution, but we need more domestic hydrocarbons not less for the transition, instead of relying upon Russian and Middle Eastern exports.
These idiots would never go and protest in Russia.
The problem is really just that XR want everything to be very simple, do X, dont do Y and everything else is subordinate to that.
Problem is that life just isnt that simple. Yes that is also used as an excuse to do nothing but it's still true. Sometimes you need slightly counterintuitive options to realise a larger goal.
The renewable energy and climate change debate is where US was on slavery 1860. We've got a whole section of society who find it inconceivable to conceive of the destruction of the potential wealth represented by fossil fuels in the ground.
Hopefully the societal division will also become as bitter and violent as it did in 1860s America.
Lab 41% (-1) Con 34% (nc) LD 9% (nc) SNP 5% (+1) Grn 4% (+1)
Let’s see if they manage to publish their tables within BPC rules this time around.
LLG at 54%. A point down on the recent average across most pollsters. So I think the upshot is the Tories have gained back about a point or 2 in support but have maybe lost 1 or 2 to REFUK, and Labour has lost a few far left people to the Greens. The Lib Dems have been treading water but with no recent byelections there is no momentum there.
Dire Lib Dem numbers in yesterday’s YouGov:
London LD 8% (4th)
Rest of South LD 11% (3rd)
Midlands/Wales LD 8% (joint 3rd)
North LD 3% (5th)
Scotland LD 2% (joint 5th)
National average not great but the votes are generally in the right places to be efficient. Remember that "rest of South" includes areas where the Lib Dems are probably behind even REFUK.
We're in a global crisis and there is zero coverage of the party, except for Layla's list of the 35 oligarchs in parliament, so I'm not surprised the vote is in the doldrums.
Agreed, remember 39 out of 50 of the LD top target seats for the next general election are in London and the South and East.
29 out of 50 of those target seats ie over half are in the South East and South West alone.
So as long as they are still polling over 10% in the South and get Labour tactical votes this time now Corbyn is gone, the LDs should gain some Tory seats in the South (especially as most of them voted Remain in 2016)
Yes, although I would say the LDs actually did do a pretty good squeeze job on the Labour vote in 2019 in most Con vs LD seats. For example Labour lost their deposits in Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham. They need to win over some soft Con voters or at least hope the Tory turnout is lower.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
I think the LDs will win Winchester, Esher and Walton and Cheltenham at the next general election even if the Tories are re elected with a small majority.
I agree though, post Brexit the LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest to wealthy Remain areas with lots of graduates in South West London and the Home Counties.
Where the LDs still do very well in the Southwest eg Remain voting Cheltenham and Bath, demographically those areas are more similar to Surrey and Oxfordshire than old LD heartlands like Cornwall anyway
I broadly agree that a major comeback for the Lib Dems in the SW will be difficult and slow, BUT there may well be a degree of reversion to the mean in 2024 as Brexit continues to recede as a defining issue.
Chesham & Amersham is clearly in your new definition of Lib Dem heartland (with which I agree) but North Shropshire was, of course, a Leave voting constituency.
There is also a fairly good message for the Lib Dems in the SW in that so much of the levelling-up rhetoric is about northern towns, and people in the SW, which has fairly high levels of deprivation in parts, tend to feel forgotten. That "we won't go all the way and vote Labour, but don't forget about us" message worked well for the Lib Dems for many years - it won't be easily recaptured, but hasn't disappeared.
Taunton and Yeovil are probably their best bets next time, and Council results (albeit not a great indicator) suggest they are getting traction. Devon and Cornwall are probably more about getting back to some decent seconds - can't see huge shocks in 2024.
Starmer got PMQs totally wrong with his call to u-turn on the NHS funding tax uptick, because of the energy costs hike Putin is causing us. Of course help not just to poor households but businesses struggling with energy costs should, and will come, but shouldn’t come at expense of a raise of government income targeted at something badly needed - tackling backlog unnecessarily killing as many UK people as Putin’s war is killing Ukrainian.
What’s poor from Labour here is belching out same old policy from last month before everything changed with Putin’s barbaric invasion and slaughtering.
The country will back Johnson on raising taxes to fight the war and clearing NHS backlog.
Dmitri Alperovitch @DAlperovitch · 5h This is a remarkable statistic: almost 60% of Russian military's visually confirmed equipment losses thus far have been…abandoned or captured (not damaged/destroyed)
Usual caveat that we see only a fraction of what’s going on but it’s still incredible
I think hoping for a new direction for Russia even if Putin goes is unlikely.
The vast majority of Russians are nationalist and authoritarian, at the last Presidential election 77% voted for Putin and in second place with 11% was the candidate of the Communist Party.
There are few liberals and outside of the most wealthy parts of St Petersburg and Moscow far more Russians are deeply suspicious of the West and NATO expansion and in favour of the theory if a greater Russia than opposed.
The best that can be hoped for for now is that Russia can be pushed back to the most pro Russian Dombas region of Ukraine while the majority of the country manages to fight off the Russian advance and retain its independence
Aren't you missing the fact that there were no free and fair elections in Russia?
Putin would probably still have been elected with free and fair elections, although it would have been a lot closer. That seems to be the consensus of the articles I've read on the subject.
Its often said, but I think Kasparov for one has pointed out it's a nonsense suggestion - Putib hasn't risked that donuts impossible to know if he truly would have managed it. He definitely has popularity, but the 'hed have won anyway' is unknowable.
'Putib hasn't risked that donuts impossible' strong candidate for best autocorrect of the day,
I meant every word. Putib, a cousin to Putin, is very concerned about western influence like donut consumption.
Comments
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
🟩🟩⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Only just realised how to do that
A lot of R4 comedy these days is appalling.
We are so fixed on one baddie we are getting blind to making other baddies our allies?
Another war that really matters is on climate change. Does this now get put on back burner to target bringing Russia to its knees?
A lot of announcements made the last few days are more North Sea Gas and Oil drilling, maybe fracking UK back on agenda, moving away from Russian oil and gas - very soon now there can be a ceasefire, and a deal between Russia and Ukraine - where does that leave these recent announcements? scrapped in favour of Conference of the Parties on climate change? Or not scrapped on basis don’t waste the opportunity of what you wanted to do all along?
The beauty of it is six goes. I haven't failed yet.
If it were five I'd have probably lost interest by now.
Grannt Shapps is running the country now.
Still they are in a reasonable position relatively speaking, even in 1997 they only won about 7 seats in the Southeast.
I think they will find it harder to comeback in the Southwest at least in Cornwall (unless Andrew George gets back in) and Devon although Somerset is still more fertile ground for the LDs.
in 100 years time "covid" will mean nothing at all except to professional historians pay later
Surely use less fossil fuels, more renewables is a no brainer going forward?
One question though, how do you weld without gas ?
Here's a report of a £20k donation, for example:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/high-street-cosmetics-chain-lush-emerges-as-the-main-financial-backer-of-frack-off-after-donating-ps20-000-to-antifracking-campaign-8744652.html
Plus time off given to staff to attend demonstrations etc. Their Head of Campaigns Tamsin Omond, who PBers may know from various other disruptions they (she did a pronoun review) have caused, and "Climate Rush", was amongst those arrested.
If Russia wants these countries to be part of its bloc, then it should make them a better offer. Instead, it is acting like a fascist mafia boss, threatening and fighting them.
To put it bluntly: We have no responsibility for the actions of Russia. Whatever we did, Putin would find excuses to do what he wants.
Russia is in the wrong. We did not 'poke' them into this. Place all your ire, all your anger, on them, not at trying to blame us for Putin's evil.
If you need to top up, do it now...
On climate change I can't think of anything governments have ever done that will have as much impact as disrupting fossil fuels supplies like this.
I asked where is the legal definition with the UK framework of law? It should be published on the legal section of gov.uk
Do Cambo. Export to Germany, get them off dirty coal.
Then, spam the North Sea with wind turbines and fully integrate the grid across Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, UK.
Get the RR Mini-Nukes and stop putting boilers into new homes, invest in curb level charging ports.
Dunno about fracking. Don't think we need it?
Also single highest donation of aid to Ukraine
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/articles/whatisthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21#:~:text=The UK government defines sex,that is assigned at birth
The UK government defines sex as:
referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
generally male or female
something that is assigned at birth
⬛⬛🟪🟪🟩🟩⬛⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
My wordle wasn't much cop, but insane guess on the nerdle.
Churchill: Do you intend to make Yugoslavia your home after the war?
A Ukrainian soldier in the Sumy region of Ukraine thanked the United Kingdom for sending weapons on Tuesday, saying, “Give us more toys like these and there will be more destroyed tanks.”
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1501347099748802568
But why the hell do people use Twitter to post such stuff, it is completely unsuited to such long posts.
So this person is a woman then?
https://theconversation.com/there-may-be-a-huge-flaw-in-uk-fracking-hopes-the-geology-80591
https://www.edinburghgeolsoc.org/fracking-discussion-reply/
The drive to renewables will be accelerated for reasons of availability, cost and energy security - as well as the original reason of saving the planet.
Developing new fossil fuel sources may happen a bit. Because the planning and payback horizons are too long to deal with an immediate gap that will disappear in the medium term, it is likely to be limited.
Do expect the rhetoric to change though.
https://wardle.puntofisso.net/
Does the person have male anatomy? If so, they should be treated as a male when it comes to things like prison.
Other than that, who really cares?
I agree though, post Brexit the LD heartland has now shifted from the largely Leave voting Southwest to wealthy Remain areas with lots of graduates in South West London and the Home Counties.
Where the LDs still do very well in the Southwest eg Remain voting Cheltenham and Bath, demographically those areas are more similar to Surrey and Oxfordshire than old LD heartlands like Cornwall anyway
“This bazooka was bought for you by PB.com. Enjoy!”
I have no idea what anatomy that person has, but no one in their right mind would try treating him as a woman.
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1497294840110977024
They also accept btc and eth.
Looks as if Patel has been binned
Posts a keeper till after those May elections. In fact why stop there, might keep this post forever.
(2)-(4) are much more to do with Russia being screwed by its own leaders than about the West. We made some bad choices at times, but we were not intervening in Russia’s internal affairs. NATO tanks didn’t fire on the Russian Parliament.
If, say, the West had chosen to not engage with Russia’s ruling class, not do (3) and (4), people would be complaining now that the West shut Russia out! It is always difficult when another country has a corrupt &/or totalitarian regime. Do you cut off contact with that country or do you maintain some engagement? We should’ve have been stricter about money flowing through London. Western parties should’ve been more cautious about cosying up to oligarchs. But, fundamentally, the problem was and is with Russia’s rulers, not with our response to them. Putin would still be there without (3) and (4).
I think the fairer criticism of the West is our role in the failed transition from communism to a free market economy. (Cf. Lea Ypi’s “Free”.) A lot of Western advisers and institutions proposed an approach that didn’t work and allowed the oligarchs to become so rich and powerful.
Similarly the LDs would not be that bothered if they were polling only 5% in the Midlands and Wales and North as long as they were polling 10-20% in the South where their target seats mainly are
The losers were obviously the Russian people. But who cares about them? They're used to it, after all.
Then for some reason Putin decides to upset the applecart and become a nationalist revanchist instead of a cynical pragmatist. Why? Some seismic fracture must have occurred to drive a wedge between the oligarchs. What was it?
TV:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=6iy77uceunk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73shCTTJIwg
Live results:
https://election.jtbc.joins.com/
Very close - Yoon led in 3/4 exit polls, Lee in the other, all by under 1%.
Thanks,
DC
The immediate requirement is to substitute Russian oil and gas. In the medium term this will be achieved through mostly indigenous renewable sources. Whether Net Zero is a side effect of the Russia policy, or vice versa, doesn't really matter
In the interim we will need to find other fossil fuel sources to substitute for Russian ones, but these will be mostly existing sources and non UK.
It's not exactly the same, but both head in the same direction.
As a game what it shows time and time again is that the more round a country is, the harder it is to identify. (With the probably exception of the very round but easy to spot Romania).
East Midlands - 7.8%
London - 14.9%
North East - 6.8%
North West - 7.9%
Scotland - 9.5%
South East - 18.2%
South West - 18.2%
Wales - 6.0%
West Midlands - 7.9%
Yorkshire and The Humber - 8.1%
East of England - 13.4%
GB - 11.8%
Edit. Too slow.
Problem is that life just isnt that simple. Yes that is also used as an excuse to do nothing but it's still true. Sometimes you need slightly counterintuitive options to realise a larger goal.
Well, yes, that would be desirable
https://twitter.com/shaunwalker7/status/1501529331125919746
Daily Quordle #44
4️⃣🟥
8️⃣9️⃣
quordle.com
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜ 🟨⬜⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟨🟩⬜ 🟨🟨⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜ ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜🟨⬜🟩⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟨⬜🟨⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟨🟨⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩🟩⬜🟩 🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟩 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩⬜🟩 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Daily Quordle #44
🟥7️⃣
5️⃣6️⃣
quordle.com
🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨 ⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟨🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟩⬜⬜⬜ 🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ ⬜⬜⬜🟩⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜ 🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬜🟩🟩🟩⬜ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜ 🟨⬜🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ 🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨 🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜
⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Hopefully the societal division will also become as bitter and violent as it did in 1860s America.
Chesham & Amersham is clearly in your new definition of Lib Dem heartland (with which I agree) but North Shropshire was, of course, a Leave voting constituency.
There is also a fairly good message for the Lib Dems in the SW in that so much of the levelling-up rhetoric is about northern towns, and people in the SW, which has fairly high levels of deprivation in parts, tend to feel forgotten. That "we won't go all the way and vote Labour, but don't forget about us" message worked well for the Lib Dems for many years - it won't be easily recaptured, but hasn't disappeared.
Taunton and Yeovil are probably their best bets next time, and Council results (albeit not a great indicator) suggest they are getting traction. Devon and Cornwall are probably more about getting back to some decent seconds - can't see huge shocks in 2024.
What’s poor from Labour here is belching out same old policy from last month before everything changed with Putin’s barbaric invasion and slaughtering.
The country will back Johnson on raising taxes to fight the war and clearing NHS backlog.
Dmitri Alperovitch
@DAlperovitch
· 5h
This is a remarkable statistic: almost 60% of Russian military's visually confirmed equipment losses thus far have been…abandoned or captured (not damaged/destroyed)
Usual caveat that we see only a fraction of what’s going on but it’s still incredible
https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1501461813262757888