Sending hundreds of weapons to Ukraine seems to be doing nothing but feeding the fire. There seems to be only one thing that makes a country secure and that is ownership of a nuclear weapon. If 'The West' want to deter Russia's invasion give Ukraine the ultimate deterrant. Ten nuclear warheads with instructions.
"with instructions" - very good. The pictures-without-words in the manner of Ikea instructions would be called for. First you have to count up the components then lay out a mat for the assembly.
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
A question to those still obsessed with this. If it were found that HM ER2 had broken lockdown rules, which she had personally signed into law, should she have to abdicate?
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
Would that include being done for speeding?
The Queen can't break the law, it's her law.
Nonsense. Charles I discovered that.
There would then have to be an uprising. As it stands she can't break the law.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 52m Also worth remembering what Rishi Sunak was angrily briefing out over the weekend. "Divulging the tax status of a private individual is a criminal offence". OK. But presumably not a sacking or resigning offence now...
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
A question to those still obsessed with this. If it were found that HM ER2 had broken lockdown rules, which she had personally signed into law, should she have to abdicate?
Oh yes. Unless you plead that HM has no personal responsibility. Which is (a) incredible after indyref1 and Mr Cameron's indiscretions, and (to some extent) also the revelations about PoW/DoR's interference in legislation, and (b) raises serious questions aabout the reality of the UK constitution.
HMtQ is also head of the C of E. Her uncle was kicked out for breaching its ethics, remember.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
Would that include being done for speeding?
The Queen can't break the law, it's her law.
Nonsense. Charles I discovered that.
There would then have to be an uprising. As it stands she can't break the law.
The uprising was necessary to get him into a court of law, where he was prosecuted and convicted according to the law of the land.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
A question to those still obsessed with this. If it were found that HM ER2 had broken lockdown rules, which she had personally signed into law, should she have to abdicate?
Legally, no, because the theory is she makes but is not subject to the law
In practice it would be a question for the mood of the public and - crucially - in normal times the advice of the PM. So here's another excellent constitutional reason not to have a lying criminal phatboi in no 10 because where would his authority be?
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
1. I guess Rishi Rich is more secure in post this morning. How could Bozo sack the other bloke who has been fined, and stay in post himself?
2. Inflation - ouch! But at least the BBC website has been able to use a picture of an attractive woman filling up with diesel to illustrate the story. So that makes it easier to deal with.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
I think getting rid of him over a triviality like this
The only PM in history confirmed to have broken the law.
I know the Brexit cult have no regard to the rule of law, but I hoped the Country as a whole still did.
Apparently not.
Nope.
If he'd done 25 in a 20 mph zone I wouldn't think he should go either.
It's a trivial law that never should have been there in the first place and isn't even a law any more. I broke it all the time when it was in force.
If he'd robbed a bank he definitely should.
Somewhere between those two is a line. Not sure exactly where.
You aren't worried about the lying or misleading of parliament or the people then?
Sure, but he's lied numerous times before and he hasn't resigned or been fired. As have numerous other politicians, including Starmer. So, again, I think it's worrying, but not sufficient for him to resign. If I were his boss, I might give him a verbal warning for it, not sack him, if that analogy makes sense.
Raising taxes when he explicitly said he wouldn't, on the other hand, I think is sufficient for him to resign. It's a lie that actually matters to people, rather than one about whether he attended a party in his own garden, which doesn't. But he didn't resign, and few seriously called on him to do so iirc.
Can you remind me when Starmer lied or at least inadvertently made a mistake?
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
Would that include being done for speeding?
The Queen can't break the law, it's her law.
Nonsense. Charles I discovered that.
There would then have to be an uprising. As it stands she can't break the law.
The same applies to most heads of state.
https://www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/what-would-happen-if-the-queen-went-on-a-crime-spree/ ...There are many kinds of immunity in public international law, and the overlapping relationship between them baffles LLB students and judges alike: see, for example, Pinochet no 2 (1999), in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson was so out of his depth the judgment reads like a transcript from a Liz Truss select committee appearance.
In our Queen-on-a-rampage scenario, however, all the alleged crimes have been committed at home. Therefore, while international law might still help us later, our starting point is a related legal principle in domestic law, sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity is a customary principle, under which the Queen and the criminal law simply don’t mix. It was last tested in court in 1911, when King George V was accused of bigamy: the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King could not be ordered to give evidence, and that was the end of that...
But customary principles don't easily survive if they are breached gratuitously, which happily in the present monarch's case is highly unlikely.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
Off topic, been reading some well researched data on the main driver of inflation (petrol prices) and it really does seem there has been a dereliction of duty by the CMA. There are now far, far too few major forecourt operators which has allowed margins to rise well beyond the standard 1-2% that is normal for an ultra high volume product.
The Issa brothers should never have been allowed to buy Asda, consolidation of a major market discounter has meant higher average margins and significantly slower average price drops.
While they were fannying about trying to get Facebook to sell Giphy, something no one gives a fuck about, they've allowed forecourt owners to eliminate any serious competitors and pump up their margins and rip off the whole nation.
One simple move would be the remerger of Asda and it's forecourts and then turning TPG/Issa into forces sellers of Asda. Potentially breaking up their forecourt empire into two or three as well.
The “we can’t change leader in a war” thing is obviously nonsense. Tory MPs have had a look at the alternative leaders and decided, for now, that their own interests are best served with this PM. A lack of obvious successor is what’s keeping show on the road, war is a fig leaf.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
Is that an inflatory adjustment if you are being paid in Rubles?
1. I guess Rishi Rich is more secure in post this morning. How could Bozo sack the other bloke who has been fined, and stay in post himself?
2. Inflation - ouch! But at least the BBC website has been able to use a picture of an attractive woman filling up with diesel to illustrate the story. So that makes it easier to deal with.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
The local elections are in 3 weeks time and I suspect there will be at least one more round of FPN including another for Boris...
I really would not want to be a conservative candidate in this situation
They should stand as independents. like your chap.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Are you alright?
Genuine question. Your posts across various topics have got quite angry, recently.
I'm fine, thanks for asking.
The war in Ukraine is distressing. Deep down, I suspect I wouldn't have the courage to fight like the Ukrainians are. I know "The West" faces a difficult dilemma as to how much to get involved, but this is an unusually simple situation. Russia is in the wrong. They are fascists, and those standing up for them are a disgrace.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
Is that an inflatory adjustment if you are being paid in Rubles?
No, just a reflection of the rarity of Tory defenders of Mr Johnson these days.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
PB tories are working hard today attempting to spin and pulling a hell of a lot of wool over many peoples eyes, conflating the eating of cake with misleading parliament.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
"The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you."
Those "fairweather supporters" are more normally called "voters" and are somewhat essential to a party of government, as our system is currently constituted.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? It's an absurd standard. We have international law and principles - a prohibition on wars of aggression, for example, for a reason. Spurious justifications for wars are very easy to come by.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
PB tories are working hard today attempting to spin and pulling a hell of a lot of wool over many peoples eyes, conflating the eating of cake with misleading parliament.
Well, TBF they must be feeling a bit sheepish for having wished a criminal PM on us.
I am not naive enough to think that honour determines politics but I am surprised by how few Tories mourn the death of the Ministerial Code or feel a sense of foreboding that future Prime Ministers may mislead Parliament or break the law without consequence. There will be a cost. https://twitter.com/theobertram/status/1514129924084404229
A cost paid by us, not them. Why would that bother them? Now is all that matters.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
The local elections are in 3 weeks time and I suspect there will be at least one more round of FPN including another for Boris...
I really would not want to be a conservative candidate in this situation
They should stand as independents. like your chap.
(Joke!)
You malign our independent candidate who is not a conservative or conservative leaning but it is a good point if a bit too late
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
Would that include being done for speeding?
The Queen can't break the law, it's her law.
Nonsense. Charles I discovered that.
Legally a questionable decision, although as argued in The Tyrannicide Brief, it was still closer to what we'd call an attempt at a fair trial than most got, and definitely fairer than the regicide got.
Nick Robinson interviewing Michael Green about dishonesty. A must listen. Nick Robinson gets better with time. I'd give him LK's job though I know he has health issues.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
Let's just shoot down the "Bozo can't resign because don't you know there is a war on?" argument
1) Asquith gave way to Lloyd George during WW1 2) Chamberlain gave way to Churchill when there was a war on (that we were a big part of) 3) Churchill gave way to Atlee when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 4)Thatcher gave way to Major when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 5) Blair to Brown, Afghan and Iraq 6) Brown to Cameron ditto etc.
These are just off the top of my head. To say that a war, however significant, where none of our troops are even remotely involved is a reason for a law breaking lying buffoon to remain in office is ludicrous
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
or even the use of the word kosher in a general not specifically Jewish situation perhaps?
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
HYUFD's posts have far more imagination, although the last sentence was rather familiar.
When the public hear Johnson and his cheerleaders say he must stay on because of the Ukraine war, do they add rank hypocrisy to the callousness of his original offence? Or do they see a great leader protecting the free world from the Russian aggression?
Actually I'm not sure they're even trying to justify this to others. I think they're trying to convince themselves.
People may think that when Zelensky praises Boris as a great friend of Ukraine, this is for some reason more important than attending a party for ten minutes in his own garden.
Bizarre train of logic, I know.
Thatcher's international standing was godlike by comparison with Boris's, and that didn't stop her being toppled.
Very true.
There needs to be an election by the end of 2023. My analysis and prediction is it can all happen very quickly as soon as the bad local election results are in next month.
In terms of managing expectations, what sort of figure is not very spinnable - minus 500 councillors?
And what is the current expectation for the size of Tory losses? Are we due any sort of polling, or any predictive modelling?
I'm thinking the Tories will lose 200 councillors although I may have underestimated the no. of all out elections so there is potential for more damage on a bad night.
I agree with AndyJS that a Lab lead of 5% or less is perfectly spinnable for the Conservatives.
EdM led by 7% in 2012 and Kinnock by 7% in 1985.
It was Labour's 11% lead in 1990 which put the pressure on Thatcher.
Yes I am aware of all that although I notice John Smith only led by 8% in 1993 which is perhaps a good comparison as well (although that was county councils and Wales). I am only confident of Labour doing 'well' in Northern Met districts and Wales and I think Bury is the only all up Met council?
I also only expect a modest Labour gain of about 3% in Scotland although Lab could narrowly come 2nd in cllrs there now.
Honestly I think Labour would have to win Plymouth and Swindon and make proper inroads in the West Midlands to put proper pressure on the gvt which I don't see happening.
I think Scottish Labour jumping up from third to second in May is now nailed on. Their recent polling has been great, whereas the Scottish Tories appear to be back down to close to core vote territory.
Further, you’ve got to remember that SLab is the least Unionist of the 3 Unionist parties, and hence the most transfer-friendly in the Single Transferable Vote election in three weeks time. A typical pro-independence voter might rank candidates 1 SNP 2 Grn 3 Lab 4 LD 5 Con. In tight contests that will play out in Sarwar’s favour.
25 SLab candidates in May are pro-independence or pro IndyRef2. A remarkable statistic when you consider the official party line and vitriol these strong individuals have to put up with. As soon as the lock is removed, their numbers will quickly swell. Labour are the final bastion holding the Union together, and their resolve is wavering.
Really interesting Stuart.
Assuming Labour can't win outright in GE2024 (they might) and assuming they don't have enough for power with the LibDems alone then an agreement with the SNP at Westminster would be fascinating. It would make the SNP's life a lot easier if they didn't have to fight in the courts to get indyref2 so there's a lot in it for them and I'm fairly sure the two parties could agree to work together, but on the question of independence campaign as free agents. That wouldn't be the first time pragmatism like that has happened.
I don't really understand to be honest why Labour and the LibDems are officially so unionist.
Let Scotland have another vote and decide for themselves! What's wrong with being democratic?
Good question. And they might go for Ref2 as a policy. It may gain votes and perhaps not lose a lot.
The case for status quo unionism is thin, and has been for years. In a secular age there is no decent case for the island of Ireland not being unified, and Brexit amplifies this. But the Ireland border problem emphasises how difficult the Scottish/English border problem would be if it became an EU border. (I can see Scotland from where I live so am biased, but it is still objectively true).
The border, currency and economy issues make it impossible (IMHO) that a Ref2 can be won by the Nats. But it would be a lengthy and divisive distraction.
Tactically (and I want Labour to lead the next government, I thing I have not wanted for decades) allowing Ref2 would probably be the best policy, on the private basis that it coud not win, especially if Labour were in power.
And after RefBrexit obvs nothing could possibly go wrong.
There is in the sense that more Northern Irish voters still vote for Unionist and Nationalist parties. While every MP from county Antrim for example, the largest Northern Irish county, is DUP.
As for Scotland an indyref2 is only likely if Labour need SNP support to get into power after the next general election
Maybe this is why Sunak didn't strike and bring Johnson down when all this first broke months ago?
He knew he was in the frame as well.
Maybe Sunak is playing a really really cunning long game (ok this isn’t totally serious)…..
How about he knew that his family tax affairs were a big problem for him and also realised he was likely to get a FPN. He also knew that if he was getting a FPN then Boris would too and also he’s absolutely certain Ukraine is going to kick off.
He doesn’t jump ship and depose Boris but decides to stay but slightly distant.
He puts out a spring statement that doesn’t really do much but crucially doesn’t use up ammunition - if everything is shit then everything is shit right now anyway.
He then ensures his tax situation gets out during Ukraine.
He is now in a position where Boris can’t dump him because he can jump first and claim moral high-ground over Boris over parties which damages Boris further. He can claim (true or not) that Boris stopped various measures he wanted to introduce in spring statement etc. Boris is stuck with Rishi.
He now potentially, if Boris holds on for a while, is in a position where he can then use the ammunition he saved in Spring statement for a big budget in Autumn where people are thinking about heating bills etc more as it gets colder.
By then Ukraine effects could have died down and he can announce spending splurge as country’s finances are in a better state six months on.
His tax situation will be fish and chip wrapping and he can say “I should have done it differently but when I realised how unfair it was my wife immediately changed her tax situation because we want to contribute to this amazing country as best we can blah blah blah.”
Boris leads Tories to a narrow win at next election, fulfils personal political aims and then steps down.
Rehabilitated Rishi having managed the country’s finances prudently despite calls to spend earlier is the darling of sound money Tory backbenchers and walks into the top job.
Again not altogether seriously likely however it’s also a possibility.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
"The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you."
Those "fairweather supporters" are more normally called "voters" and are somewhat essential to a party of government, as our system is currently constituted.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
Formally, we aren't at war. It's also noteworthy that the statement is dated Fab 18th ie *before* the latest invasion.
Perhaps "useful idiot" is a better term for the likes of Corbyn and Webbe, who is the only other MP remaining on that statement, for now - the other 11(?) having withdrawn their signatures. Though I think it is perhaps too kind.
The likes of Galloway are in my view more cynical.
In his speech at the STWC online rally around that time which I listened to, Corbyn was explicitly blaming "the NATO build up in Ukraine", which was entirely fictional. But that's hardly a surprise.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…".
They appear not to have noticed the complete incompatibility of the two sides' peace proposals. Nor that Putin has announced that the talks are over because of the UK/Ukraine "provocation" in Bucha...
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
And by the way if you lose conservatives like me then the party is out of office for decades
Last time you went Labour, when you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001, it was 13 years out of power. Not exactly decades
That is quite funny to be fair
It's interesting that 13 years out of power after 18 years *in* power still seems like a longer period than Labour's (minimum) 13-15 years out of power, after 13 years in power. Certainly it doesn't feel like 12 years since the last Labour government (which is, to some extent, what allows Johnson's administration to continue to blame them for everything.)
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
Yes I would in a heartbeat. Boris is doing f all other than letting weapons be sent over, a child could do that.
And Corbyn would likely have prevented it.
Oh my God, I thought you were a more intelligent poster. You think Putin would have listened to Mr Thicky? ffs! That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on here
1. I guess Rishi Rich is more secure in post this morning. How could Bozo sack the other bloke who has been fined, and stay in post himself?
2. Inflation - ouch! But at least the BBC website has been able to use a picture of an attractive woman filling up with diesel to illustrate the story. So that makes it easier to deal with.
Weirdly she seems to be smiling too. Must have a voucher.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
PB tories are working hard today attempting to spin and pulling a hell of a lot of wool over many peoples eyes, conflating the eating of cake with misleading parliament.
Well, TBF they must be feeling a bit sheepish for having wished a criminal PM on us.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
And by the way if you lose conservatives like me then the party is out of office for decades
Last time you went Labour, when you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001, it was 13 years out of power. Not exactly decades
That is quite funny to be fair
You voted Conservative in 2019 when Johnson was leader. Johnson has not changed at all so why don't you support him now?
I think Boris has done well on covid and Ukraine, less so on Brexit but when my grandchildren ask
'Papa, has the Prime Minister lied'
Then my answer is 'yes but he has accepted responsibility and resigned which is the right thing to do'
I cannot say that at present
And by the way I have not only voted conservative at every selection since 1964, apart from 97 and 01, but I have been an active campaigner for the party at many of those elections
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
As I say downthread, it's more a "fuck that, I'm not getting off my arse for that clown" come election time, rather than "MAKE WAY, I'M VOTING FOR THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS, THE LAST BASTION OF RIGHTOUSNESS, TO SMITE THESE WRONGDOERS".
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
This scandal is simultaneously outrageous and boring. It’s OMG and Yawn
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
Depends who you didn't get to see when they were dying during lockdown. You love The Clown, so you desperately want people to think it unimportant, in the same way that those who are loyal to Putin believe in "denazification" or any other such nonsensical bollox that they are told to believe by their great leader. It is called being gullible.
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
This is getting tiresome now. Most normal Conservative voters are desperate to move on. It will be forgotten again when the Tories end up level pegging with Labour in the local elections and then all the heat will be on Starmer.
Lol!
Yes, obeying the law is terribly tiresome, James. Think I'll not bother today.
The serious point however that it all speaks of a sense of entitlement amongst Boris and his associates. The laws don't apply to them. Laws are for little people like you and me.
They think we are mugs. I'm not though. Are you?
It's not just a question of the law.
It is about a public duty to set an example.
The Queen didn't sit alone simply because it was the law. She did it because she felt she should set an example and that was her honourable duty. Like her father during the War.
Johnson and co have no concept of the word.
I was once asked what would happen if the Queen broke the law.
I said she would have to give up the throne, like her uncle.
But, I added, because of who she is, what she is and how she sees her role, she would never do it.
Would that include being done for speeding?
The Queen can't break the law, it's her law.
Nonsense. Charles I discovered that.
Legally a questionable decision, although as argued in The Tyrannicide Brief, it was still closer to what we'd call an attempt at a fair trial than most got, and definitely fairer than the regicide got.
Ultimately all laws must be founded on consent for their legitimacy, as with the position of head of state, and indeed the state itself. To argue otherwise is to argue for authoritarianism.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
It may be realpolitik that it can't happen but I believe in democracy. If Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO accepts, thats democracry. Its not up to Russia. We don't get to intervene in France if they make unpopular choices.
STW are transparently pro-Russian, not doubt because they still associate them with communism.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
Full responsibility: "I did it. I lied about it. I'm sorry. I resign."
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying." https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
Yes I would in a heartbeat. Boris is doing f all other than letting weapons be sent over, a child could do that.
And Corbyn would likely have prevented it.
Oh my God, I thought you were a more intelligent poster. You think Putin would have listened to Mr Thicky? ffs! That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on here
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
Yes I would in a heartbeat. Boris is doing f all other than letting weapons be sent over, a child could do that.
And Corbyn would likely have prevented it.
Oh my God, I thought you were a more intelligent poster. You think Putin would have listened to Mr Thicky? ffs! That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on here
Prevented our supply of weapons to Ukraine.
Are you suggesting that would have stopped Putin's ambition, and he wouldn't have invaded, or just led to a much quicker annexation of the whole of Ukraine into "Greater Russia"?
Full responsibility: "I did it. I lied about it. I'm sorry. I resign."
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying." https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
Actually Sky have played a piece with Boris at a school on the same day with the schoolchildren singing happy birthday and giving him a cake
I expect the result of all this is that we will not have such draconian rules again, irrespective of whether Boris survives or not
Let's just shoot down the "Bozo can't resign because don't you know there is a war on?" argument
1) Asquith gave way to Lloyd George during WW1 2) Chamberlain gave way to Churchill when there was a war on (that we were a big part of) 3) Churchill gave way to Atlee when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 4)Thatcher gave way to Major when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 5) Blair to Brown, Afghan and Iraq 6) Brown to Cameron ditto etc.
These are just off the top of my head. To say that a war, however significant, where none of our troops are even remotely involved is a reason for a law breaking lying buffoon to remain in office is ludicrous
No point using logic here. Any logical person would have resigned months ago.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
And by the way if you lose conservatives like me then the party is out of office for decades
Last time you went Labour, when you voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001, it was 13 years out of power. Not exactly decades
That is quite funny to be fair
You voted Conservative in 2019 when Johnson was leader. Johnson has not changed at all so why don't you support him now?
"You should have known that he was a nasty piece of work all along. Keep voting Conservative."
I suppose it's worth a try as a campaign slogan.
Here we go.
I think that sums him up. A nasty piece of work who hides behind an image of "loveable twat". Whichever it is, I don't understand why anyone with half a brain would want him running a whelk stall
Let's just shoot down the "Bozo can't resign because don't you know there is a war on?" argument
1) Asquith gave way to Lloyd George during WW1 2) Chamberlain gave way to Churchill when there was a war on (that we were a big part of) 3) Churchill gave way to Atlee when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 4)Thatcher gave way to Major when there was war on (that we were a big part of) 5) Blair to Brown, Afghan and Iraq 6) Brown to Cameron ditto etc.
These are just off the top of my head. To say that a war, however significant, where none of our troops are even remotely involved is a reason for a law breaking lying buffoon to remain in office is ludicrous
No point using logic here. Any logical person would have resigned months ago.
Yes, but that argument needs to be put to all Tory MPs that are using this lame excuse to sit on their hands.
1. I guess Rishi Rich is more secure in post this morning. How could Bozo sack the other bloke who has been fined, and stay in post himself?
2. Inflation - ouch! But at least the BBC website has been able to use a picture of an attractive woman filling up with diesel to illustrate the story. So that makes it easier to deal with.
Weirdly she seems to be smiling too. Must have a voucher.
"Fiona was cross with her partner for voting in this shower of a government, but she decided to get even, not angry, so she filled up her partner's petrol car with diesel while using her partner's credit card to pay for it"
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
PB tories are working hard today attempting to spin and pulling a hell of a lot of wool over many peoples eyes, conflating the eating of cake with misleading parliament.
Well, TBF they must be feeling a bit sheepish for having wished a criminal PM on us.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
You miss the point I was making: that the first thing it mentions is *our* responsibility. WTF does it mention 'British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine' ?
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
I have been active in the peace movement, but have never liked STW as it is a hard left front, while mine is a more Christian approach to peace.
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
You are HYUFD and I claim my 5p.
PB tories are working hard today attempting to spin and pulling a hell of a lot of wool over many peoples eyes, conflating the eating of cake with misleading parliament.
Well, TBF they must be feeling a bit sheepish for having wished a criminal PM on us.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
I'm not a STW fan but your post prompted me to have a look. Reading the piece behind the strapline I see
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
It may be realpolitik that it can't happen but I believe in democracy. If Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO accepts, thats democracry. Its not up to Russia. We don't get to intervene in France if they make unpopular choices.
STW are transparently pro-Russian, not doubt because they still associate them with communism.
Every one who has put their name to that STW statement is a traitor.
Don't be ridiculous. We aren't at war with anyone so how can this be relevant. There was a lot of people before ww2 who counselled and called for us to stay out of it. It is called democracy and not living in a big brother dictatorship.
Lots of people seem very sure that we aren’t at war. Sounds like a game of semantics to me. Certainly feels to me a lot like we are.
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
It would not change anything but the only way for it to work is that the conservative mps agree a coronation candidate or Boris resigns but stays in post until his successor is elected
Either are fine by me
Johnson is doing well enough to fight the next election now especially if Labour undeperforms in the local elections. The Conservative Party could do without fairweather supporters like you.
Corbyn would have chosen a different path on the Russia/Ukraine situation. The idea that we'd change path with the plausible alternatives to Johnson now (Incl Starmer) is ludicrous. It's the most preposterous line of defence for Boris amongst some very bad ones I think.
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
Yes I would in a heartbeat. Boris is doing f all other than letting weapons be sent over, a child could do that.
And Corbyn would likely have prevented it.
Oh my God, I thought you were a more intelligent poster. You think Putin would have listened to Mr Thicky? ffs! That is one of the most ridiculous posts I have seen on here
Prevented our supply of weapons to Ukraine.
Are you suggesting that would have stopped Putin's ambition, and he wouldn't have invaded, or just led to a much quicker annexation of the whole of Ukraine into "Greater Russia"?
No. I think you might have a comprehension problem here. My comment was in reply to a claim that our policy of helping Ukraine would have been little different under Corbyn.
It seems to me highly unlikely that Corbyn would readily have supplied weapons in the way we did before Putin started the full scale invasion, and would at the very best have taken the German approach of reluctance change of mind some time after it started. It's very probable that Ukraine would as a result have fared far worse than it has.
“Today’s reading for RPI inflation means that the maximum interest rate, which is charged to current students and graduates earning more than £49,130, will rise from its current level of 4.5% to an eye-watering 12%”
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I think you're going a bit over the top, but I personally would be very, very chary about associating with anything that Claudia Webbe was. One has to be careful about being wise after the event, but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. However, there's no doubt whatsoever that the Russian state and particularly the Russian army has behaved appallingly.
"... but one cannot say that Ukraine has always been whiter than white. "
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
What country on the planet has been "whiter than white" ? .
It is also not a very acceptable phrase nowadays. White = purity and good. Black = darkness and evil.
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
or even the use of the word kosher in a general not specifically Jewish situation perhaps?
Or even @DoubleDutch's choice of username? Tongue in cheek, perhaps?
I expect that with further fines likely, the may elections which look very difficult for the party, and the Sue Gray report Boris greatest moment of peril will arrive in may and june
I hope that the party then takes decisive action and elects a new leader
Most of the candidates are corrupted by association with Johnson, though. Wallace has, after all, served in the Cabinet. Hunt scrapped our stock of PPE, or as good as. To name but two.
You could apply the same logic to Starmer and his cabinet who all campaigned to elect Corbyn
Corbyn might be mistaken, but, AFAIK, he is not dishonest. Indeed, it's his honesty about his views which get's him into bother with the Right.
Corbyn is in a different league of unacceptability and he is rejected by far more than the right, unless you think Starmer is on the right
You and I are never going to agree about Corbyn, of course. However, I would rather have had hime, with all his baggage, as PM than Johnson. The nation was offered a poor choice in both 2017 and 2019.
Really - are you saying you would rather have Corbyn dealing with war in Ukraine?
TBH, I'm not aware of any statements he has made about Ukraine. Has he made any?
Just read STW's stupid statement on the Ukrainian conflict. A statement that spends one paragraph talking about the war, and the rest talking about how it is all our fault.
And which ends with the following: "We urge the entire anti-war movement to unite on the basis of challenging the British government’s aggressive posturing and direct its campaigning to that end above all."
No call on Russia to withdraw. To these traitorous fuckwits, it is our fault.
I hate STW (aka the SWP rebadged for people who shop at Waitrose) but this is out of date - the statement you link to is dated 18 February. The war began (or at least it’s current incarnation started) on 24 February. So it’s not perhaps surprising that there is not much space devoted to the Russian occupation.
I'm unsure that is of any relevance. Everyone knew the war was going to occur, and STW's website currently does not look much different.
I think we have copious evidence on PB alone that that was not the case.
So many savvy takes.
Okay, anyone who was paying attention.
The only way the war would not have occurred would have been if the Ukraine had capitulated to Russia before it began.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin has made it very clear which countries he sees as being the next to be inserted into his Empire of Shittiness.
Entertaining stuff on here this morning, and elsewhere, from those trying to find solace for the PM.
1. It's not Boris's fault - the rules were ridiculously draconian, so let's blame the bastards who came up with them. 2. Lying doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, especially when there's a war going on. 3. And anyway, the lying was about trivial shit and who gives a flying fuck about the Ministerial Code anyway. 4. When all else fails - it's Corbyn's fault! If Boris goes, Stop the War will take over.
Comments
The pictures-without-words in the manner of Ikea instructions would be called for. First you have to count up the components then lay out a mat for the assembly.
French Election soundite: Macron pledged to increase the retirement age from 62 to 65, amongst others. What were his voter demographics?
His programme is a further demonstration of his "neither left, nor right" political positioning that borrows from both sides of the traditional divide in politics.
From the right wing, there are promises of more tax cuts for companies, thousands of new police officers and judges, and a rise in the retirement age to 65 from 62 in order to cut the pension system's massive debt.
"I take responsibility for telling you that yes: we need to work longer," he said at his first campaign rally last weekend.
From the left, he proposes raising the minimum level of pensions, new recruits for the health service, and a promise to make gender equality and tackling school harassment a priority.
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220410-french-presidency-what-are-macron-and-le-pen-promising
@DPJHodges
·
52m
Also worth remembering what Rishi Sunak was angrily briefing out over the weekend. "Divulging the tax status of a private individual is a criminal offence". OK. But presumably not a sacking or resigning offence now...
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1514138878520827904
Whether that means it’s the right or wrong time to have a Tory leadership question is an entirely separate question. For what it’s worth I don’t see how BJ stepping down and a new leader stepping up would change much.
He knew he was in the frame as well.
HMtQ is also head of the C of E. Her uncle was kicked out for breaching its ethics, remember.
Genuine question. Your posts across various topics have got quite angry, recently.
Either are fine by me
In practice it would be a question for the mood of the public and - crucially - in normal times the advice of the PM. So here's another excellent constitutional reason not to have a lying criminal phatboi in no 10 because where would his authority be?
There are several things to say about this.
Firstly, Ukraine has not been whiter than white. However, it has been an independent sate for all of three decades, and for much of that time had massive amounts of political interference from its larger neighbour. And, for eight years, military interference. What state would Ukraine be in if it had been allowed to take the same route as (say) Poland, Romania or Lithuania without Russia's interference?
Secondly, any misdeeds by Ukraine, internally and internationally, are infinitesimal compared to Russia's. They're really not worth mentioning in the same sentence for fear of equating them.
That's the problem with STW's and Corbyn's position. They strive to blame *anyone* other than Russia for Russia's aggression. Including ourselves.
This war, this awful, hideous tragedy that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions, is the result of one country's actions. Russia. They are solely to blame. Nothing any other country has done to them warrants their fascist and imperialist actions.
Blame Russia. end of.
Two points:
1. I guess Rishi Rich is more secure in post this morning. How could Bozo sack the other bloke who has been fined, and stay in post himself?
2. Inflation - ouch! But at least the BBC website has been able to use a picture of an attractive woman filling up with diesel to illustrate the story. So that makes it easier to deal with.
https://www.law.ac.uk/resources/blog/what-would-happen-if-the-queen-went-on-a-crime-spree/
...There are many kinds of immunity in public international law, and the overlapping relationship between them baffles LLB students and judges alike: see, for example, Pinochet no 2 (1999), in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson was so out of his depth the judgment reads like a transcript from a Liz Truss select committee appearance.
In our Queen-on-a-rampage scenario, however, all the alleged crimes have been committed at home. Therefore, while international law might still help us later, our starting point is a related legal principle in domestic law, sovereign immunity.
Sovereign immunity is a customary principle, under which the Queen and the criminal law simply don’t mix. It was last tested in court in 1911, when King George V was accused of bigamy: the Lord Chief Justice decided that the King could not be ordered to give evidence, and that was the end of that...
But customary principles don't easily survive if they are breached gratuitously, which happily in the present monarch's case is highly unlikely.
Here's the strapline at the top of the website: "We’re calling on the British government to stop talking up war in Ukraine and give its support to a negotiated peace by backing the peace proposals now being discussed by Ukrainian President Zelensky and his Russian counterparts…"
"talking up the war."
It's our fault, apparently.
Note there's no call for Russia to pull out of Ukraine: the easiest way for this war to be stopped.
The Issa brothers should never have been allowed to buy Asda, consolidation of a major market discounter has meant higher average margins and significantly slower average price drops.
While they were fannying about trying to get Facebook to sell Giphy, something no one gives a fuck about, they've allowed forecourt owners to eliminate any serious competitors and pump up their margins and rip off the whole nation.
One simple move would be the remerger of Asda and it's forecourts and then turning TPG/Issa into forces sellers of Asda. Potentially breaking up their forecourt empire into two or three as well.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1514152983835119621
(Joke!)
The war in Ukraine is distressing. Deep down, I suspect I wouldn't have the courage to fight like the Ukrainians are. I know "The West" faces a difficult dilemma as to how much to get involved, but this is an unusually simple situation. Russia is in the wrong. They are fascists, and those standing up for them are a disgrace.
e.g. Crowning the Ocelot; Jumping the Otter.
And by the way if you lose conservatives like me then the party is out of office for decades
Those "fairweather supporters" are more normally called "voters" and are somewhat essential to a party of government, as our system is currently constituted.
It's an absurd standard.
We have international law and principles - a prohibition on wars of aggression, for example, for a reason. Spurious justifications for wars are very easy to come by.
It is not complicated.
At about 2.10 0nwards.......
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00168b3
Not really kosher in this day and age. Plenty of alternatives.
Choice of language often says a lot about a person.
1) Asquith gave way to Lloyd George during WW1
2) Chamberlain gave way to Churchill when there was a war on (that we were a big part of)
3) Churchill gave way to Atlee when there was war on (that we were a big part of)
4)Thatcher gave way to Major when there was war on (that we were a big part of)
5) Blair to Brown, Afghan and Iraq
6) Brown to Cameron ditto etc.
These are just off the top of my head. To say that a war, however significant, where none of our troops are even remotely involved is a reason for a law breaking lying buffoon to remain in office is ludicrous
As for Scotland an indyref2 is only likely if Labour need SNP support to get into power after the next general election
How about he knew that his family tax affairs were a big problem for him and also realised he was likely to get a FPN. He also knew that if he was getting a FPN then Boris would too and also he’s absolutely certain Ukraine is going to kick off.
He doesn’t jump ship and depose Boris but decides to stay but slightly distant.
He puts out a spring statement that doesn’t really do much but crucially doesn’t use up ammunition - if everything is shit then everything is shit right now anyway.
He then ensures his tax situation gets out during Ukraine.
He is now in a position where Boris can’t dump him because he can jump first and claim moral high-ground over Boris over parties which damages Boris further. He can claim (true or not) that Boris stopped various measures he wanted to introduce in spring statement etc. Boris is stuck with Rishi.
He now potentially, if Boris holds on for a while, is in a position where he can then use the ammunition he saved in Spring statement for a big budget in Autumn where people are thinking about heating bills etc more as it gets colder.
By then Ukraine effects could have died down and he can announce spending splurge as country’s finances are in a better state six months on.
His tax situation will be fish and chip wrapping and he can say “I should have done it differently but when I realised how unfair it was my wife immediately changed her tax situation because we want to contribute to this amazing country as best we can blah blah blah.”
Boris leads Tories to a narrow win at next election, fulfils personal political aims and then steps down.
Rehabilitated Rishi having managed the country’s finances prudently despite calls to spend earlier is the darling of sound money Tory backbenchers and walks into the top job.
Again not altogether seriously likely however it’s also a possibility.
Perhaps "useful idiot" is a better term for the likes of Corbyn and Webbe, who is the only other MP remaining on that statement, for now - the other 11(?) having withdrawn their signatures. Though I think it is perhaps too kind.
The likes of Galloway are in my view more cynical.
In his speech at the STWC online rally around that time which I listened to, Corbyn was explicitly blaming "the NATO build up in Ukraine", which was entirely fictional. But that's hardly a surprise.
Nor that Putin has announced that the talks are over because of the UK/Ukraine "provocation" in Bucha...
I can see Boris surviving, quite easily, out of voter apathy
Is anyone out there really boiling with anger? I doubt it. It’s like a car crash filmed in such ultra-slow-motion you lose interest
"President Zelensky has outlined the two most essential conditions of peace: that the invading Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine and that the Ukraine will become a neutral country, not a member of NATO. These terms are the basis of an agreement, according to Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
We welcome these developments as the necessary first steps to ending the bloodshed, allowing refugees to return to their homes, and ending the economic damage being done to the livelihoods of ordinary working people both in the combatant states are [sic] around the globe."
That is not a particularly outrageous view, and certainly not treason. I agree that it doesn't explicitly assign blame and the statement is pretty naively optimistic about the peace talks but citing Zelensky approvingly and calling it a Russian invasion is reasonably clear.
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/ukraine-peace-now/
'Papa, has the Prime Minister lied'
Then my answer is 'yes but he has accepted responsibility and resigned which is the right thing to do'
I cannot say that at present
And by the way I have not only voted conservative at every selection since 1964, apart from 97 and 01, but I have been an active campaigner for the party at many of those elections
I suppose it's worth a try as a campaign slogan.
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514157141950709760
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/04/nuremberg-a-fair-trial-a-dangerous-precedent/306492/
Ultimately all laws must be founded on consent for their legitimacy, as with the position of head of state, and indeed the state itself.
To argue otherwise is to argue for authoritarianism.
STW are transparently pro-Russian, not doubt because they still associate them with communism.
I see nothing on that site that says they want anything other than a Russian victory.
You have been all over the place on Ukraine, Nick. It is not our fault. It is not Ukraine's fault (aside from the fact they commit the ultimate crime of wanting to be a sovereign nation). It is not NATO's fault.
The war is Russia's fault. If 'Stop the War' really wanted the war to end, they would be pouring their ire onto Russia and calling on them to withdraw.
They are not.
Johnson-style responsibility: "I did it, but nobody told me having beers, on my birthday, surrounded by a group singing 'happy birthday', was a party. It's their fault. They made me lie. So I'm staying."
https://twitter.com/sturdyAlex/status/1514160069952389122
I expect the result of all this is that we will not have such draconian rules again, irrespective of whether Boris survives or not
Nonetheless calling for Russian withdrawal is clearly not saying "they want a Russian victory".
Corbyn would have chosen a different path on the Russia/Ukraine situation. The idea that we'd change path with the plausible alternatives to Johnson now (Incl Starmer) is ludicrous. It's the most preposterous line of defence for Boris amongst some very bad ones I think.
So many savvy takes.
My comment was in reply to a claim that our policy of helping Ukraine would have been little different under Corbyn.
It seems to me highly unlikely that Corbyn would readily have supplied weapons in the way we did before Putin started the full scale invasion, and would at the very best have taken the German approach of reluctance change of mind some time after it started.
It's very probable that Ukraine would as a result have fared far worse than it has.
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/16024
Although it’s actually a fair bit more complicated than that, if you read the link…
The only way the war would not have occurred would have been if the Ukraine had capitulated to Russia before it began.
And if Russia wins in Ukraine, Putin has made it very clear which countries he sees as being the next to be inserted into his Empire of Shittiness.
1. It's not Boris's fault - the rules were ridiculously draconian, so let's blame the bastards who came up with them.
2. Lying doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things, especially when there's a war going on.
3. And anyway, the lying was about trivial shit and who gives a flying fuck about the Ministerial Code anyway.
4. When all else fails - it's Corbyn's fault! If Boris goes, Stop the War will take over.
F'ing brilliant stuff.