Starmer can become PM without LAB making a single gain – politicalbetting.com

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Truss bottles it...

New: Liz Truss is preparing to reveal how the UK would legislate to override the Brexit deal

- She won’t introduce legislation immediately, wants to keep talking with the EU

- Hopes outlining plan will bring DUP back to NI executive
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/truss-prepares-to-reveal-uk-s-plan-for-overriding-brexit-deal?sref=yMmXm5Iy w/ @EllenAMilligan

No - just sensible

Waving hands in the air is sensible?

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Truss bottles it..f ever

New: Liz Truss is preparing to reveal how the UK would legislate to override the Brexit deal

- She won’t introduce legislation immediately, wants to keep talking with the EU

- Hopes outlining plan will bring DUP back to NI executive
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/truss-prepares-to-reveal-uk-s-plan-for-overriding-brexit-deal?sref=yMmXm5Iy w/ @EllenAMilligan

No - just sensible

Waving hands in the air is sensible?

HYUFD said:

Technically true but not realistically true. It would require the Liberal Democrats to gain 50 to 60 seats from the Tories in constituencies like Mid Sussex, Epsom and Ewell, Chelmsford and Surrey Heath and a huge Tory to LD swing of 14 to 15%.

More realistically Starmer could become PM gaining about 50 seats from the Tories with another 10 to 20 gains from the Tories coming from the Liberal Democrats. Then Starmer could become PM in a hung parliament even if Labour was still well short of an overall majority

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

"Boris Johnson will scrap a ban on 'buy one get one free' junk food deals and a 9pm watershed for sugary snacks to help poorer families.

The policies are being pushed back for at least a year in an attempt to soften the blow of soaring living costs but they could be ditched entirely."

Mail


This government is all over the place. They spend most of their time undoing what they wanted to introduce a year or two before. A border in the Irish Sea being the obvious main example.

The policies were stupid when they were announced, but I don't think anybody thinks they make a huge difference over cost of living, unless you literally live off chocolate bars and pizzas.

EPG said:

algarkirk said:

JonathanBarnes said:

Most likely scenario for Labour is 260-280 seats in a hung parliament but they do now have a plausible route to get up to about 310 seats if they gain nearly 100 seats from the Tories in England and Wales and about 10 from the SNP (they were ahead of the SNP in the locals in a few seats like East Lothian, Lanark and Hamilton E, Glasgow E, Glasgow SW etc and not far behind in some others).

The West Midlands is the only region where Labour will struggle to make hardly any gains from the Tories I think.

I'd still be more cautious about the LDs than Labour given recent precedents although it would be very surprising if they did not gain at least 10 seats now even if I can see a few Tory MPs like William Wragg just about defying gravity.

Seats like Guildford, Wimbledon and S Cambs are surely complete shoe ins for he LDs and their chances of gaining seats like Esher and Walton, Hitchin and Harpenden and even Woking have increased further.

Broadly agree, but with a qualification, because there is no point in using the current situation as a guide to an outcome.

In general terms only two outcomes look likely: Lab minority or Tory majority government. The window for any other outcome is tiny. None is above 5-10%. That's plain maths + the actual situation we are now in + realism. The odds generally are just wrong.

There is far too much still to happen to be able to assess the relative likelihoods of the two major options. Both outcomes are highly fallible - far too many on the left actually prefer to lose elections and do their best to make it happen. The Tories woes need no explanation from me. Neither remotely deserves to form the next government but one of them will.

Therefore the real chances are roughly Labour led minority (324 seats or less) 45%. Tory majority (326+) 45%. 10% bar those.

A Lab-LD(-PC or Green) Coalition is surely plausible, even if you can mathematically bracket it with the minority.

Applicant said:

stodge said:

philiph said:

L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament.
Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.

You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.

In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.

As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.

The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.

Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.

I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.

Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Truss bottles it..f ever

New: Liz Truss is preparing to reveal how the UK would legislate to override the Brexit deal

- She won’t introduce legislation immediately, wants to keep talking with the EU

- Hopes outlining plan will bring DUP back to NI executive
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/truss-prepares-to-reveal-uk-s-plan-for-overriding-brexit-deal?sref=yMmXm5Iy w/ @EllenAMilligan

No - just sensible

Waving hands in the air is sensible?

If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years

Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched

Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.

You show just why this is stalemate

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Truss bottles it..f ever

New: Liz Truss is preparing to reveal how the UK would legislate to override the Brexit deal

- She won’t introduce legislation immediately, wants to keep talking with the EU

- Hopes outlining plan will bring DUP back to NI executive
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/truss-prepares-to-reveal-uk-s-plan-for-overriding-brexit-deal?sref=yMmXm5Iy w/ @EllenAMilligan

No - just sensible

Waving hands in the air is sensible?

If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years

Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched

Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.

You show just why this is stalemate

No, I don't. I didn't sign a treaty, win an election saying it was great, best thing since self-basting turkeys and all oven ready, then admit it was a heap of rotting poultry faeces. YOur party (at the time, and evidently now) did.

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Carnyx said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_xP said:

Truss bottles it..f ever

New: Liz Truss is preparing to reveal how the UK would legislate to override the Brexit deal

- She won’t introduce legislation immediately, wants to keep talking with the EU

- Hopes outlining plan will bring DUP back to NI executive
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-13/truss-prepares-to-reveal-uk-s-plan-for-overriding-brexit-deal?sref=yMmXm5Iy w/ @EllenAMilligan

No - just sensible

Waving hands in the air is sensible?

If everyone stays in their polarised position then this saga will continue for years

Jaw jaw is better than war war when each side is entrenched

Well, quite. It's about time the Unionists got their teddies back in the pram. And HMG did what it signed up to.

You show just why this is stalemate

No, I don't. I didn't sign a treaty, win an election saying it was great, best thing since self-basting turkeys and all oven ready, then admit it was a heap of rotting poultry faeces. YOur party (at the time, and evidently now) did.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

"Boris Johnson will scrap a ban on 'buy one get one free' junk food deals and a 9pm watershed for sugary snacks to help poorer families.

The policies are being pushed back for at least a year in an attempt to soften the blow of soaring living costs but they could be ditched entirely."

Mail


This government is all over the place. They spend most of their time undoing what they wanted to introduce a year or two before. A border in the Irish Sea being the obvious main example.

The policies were stupid when they were announced, but I don't think anybody thinks they make a huge difference over cost of living, unless you literally live off chocolate bars and pizzas.

Chocolate bars ON Pizzas?

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

StuartDickson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

Democratic countries do not govern by opinion poll. We use the ballot box.

No, democratic countries generally elect leaders to make difficult decisions on their behalf, on the basis it is quicker, easier and allows for a few people to be better informed rather than many people who are ill informed to consider the issues.

Referendums, as you should have noticed, do not always give sensible or even desirable results.

So, you want Nicola to just declare UDI tomorrow?

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Leon said:

OK travel question. I am determined to go to Georgia/Armenia in about 3 weeks, to finish my tour (and assignments) but I need to kill time in some adorable part of Greece (or neighbouring countries - Albania, Bulgaria, Turkey - but preferably Greece)

Ideally it will be a coastal part of the mainland or an island. I’m looking for that perfect island, basically, just enough development - good tavernas, hotels, bars, Wi-Fi - to make it highly habitable, but not overrun with tourists and discos. I don’t mind a few hours on a ferry if it gets me to the right place

Does such a thing still exist?!

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

StuartDickson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

Swedish volunteers did support Finland in the Winter War.

Sunil, that’s like everyone having a debate about shallots vs onions, and you hopping in and telling everyone how much you love bananas.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

EPG said:

Applicant said:

stodge said:

philiph said:

L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament.
Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.

You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.

In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.

As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.

The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.

Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.

I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.

Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.

No conceivable punishment would have left them with eight seats, about half of which were bizarre, transient local deviations from national Labour Party strength. So they would probably end 2020 on a few dozen seats facing a Tory austerity majority. Which would have been an electorally better position, if not quite morally better, by 2015.

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.

Hmmm. Doesn't seem to work somehow?

Incoherent. I think you ought to tackle this topic in a more considered fashion in the cold light of day.

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

Rest assured all the peoples of Britain can decide, so keep your wise counsel to yourself.

Hmmm. Doesn't seem to work somehow?

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!

I’m both.

Are you not also British by citizenship?

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!

I’m both.

Are you not also British by citizenship?

No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.

Says British in my passport.

If it said Knob, would that make it true?

Richard_Tyndall said:

Completely OT I am more than a little chuffed tonight.

When we bought our place a decade or more ago it had two paddocks amounting to about 2 acres attached. We decided to extend some adjacent woodland, planting around 150 trees (birch, ash, hazel, poplar and oak), replant an ancient orchard that had existed until it was grubbed out in the 1980s and turn the rest of the land back to hay meadow. We have seen the return of many different birds and insects including a big increase in moth population which - thanks to he advice of our resident PB expert Marquee Mark - I have been recording the last few years.

Finally, this evening when out by the hedge between the two meadows I noticed that for the first time we now have hares in the meadow and at least one Form. It has taken a long time to get the land back into a proper state from the barren horse paddock it was but we are finally seeing the benefits. My only slight concern is whether the Red Kites nesting in the adjacent woodland might take a fancy to the leverets but that is just a chance we will have to take.

Applicant said:

EPG said:

Applicant said:

stodge said:

philiph said:

L Dems squandered the best opportunity they have had to push to become one of the two main parties, or a third party on rough parity with Lab and Con during 2010 parliament.
Stupid myopic short termist unprepared and unimaginative.

You'll not be surprised to hear I completely disagree.

In my political life, there have arguably been three occasions when the duopoly was under real pressure - 1981, with the birth of the SDP, 2003, when the Conservatives got rid of IDS under whose leadership they could easily have finished third in the 2005 election in terms of votes (if not seats) and 2019 when the Brexit Party was an existential threat to the Conservatives.

As for 2010, I can assure you the Party war-gamed coalition scenarios. It's no secret many in the Party hoped the arithmetic would allow for both supporting the Conservatives and Labour to be options with the option to play the two main parties off against each other but that didn't happen.

The second unexpected development was Cameron's bravura speech on the Friday afternoon offering Clegg a full and open discussion to which Clegg could not and would not decline. There had been an expectation in the Party the Conservatives would shun all deals and coalitions and would prefer to govern as a minority.

Third, the unfolding crisis in Greece and the threat to the Eurozone (which was resolved by the Sunday evening after the election) piled enormous pressure on the coalition negotiators to conclude a deal - that pressure came from civil servants and the media.

I'll add a fourth - Hague was brilliant in the negotiations and completely out-manoeuvred Huhne and the LDs who were unable to get anything of substance and were forced to accept junior ministerial roles and were compelled to vote for policies directly opposed by the party.

Point 4 is really just that the maths didn't give the LDs many options - there was no possible stable Labour-led coalition so the choice was the coalition we had or a short-term minority Cameron government followed by another election where the LDs would most likely get punished for not going into government.

No conceivable punishment would have left them with eight seats, about half of which were bizarre, transient local deviations from national Labour Party strength. So they would probably end 2020 on a few dozen seats facing a Tory austerity majority. Which would have been an electorally better position, if not quite morally better, by 2015.

Oh, indeed. But that would have required long term thinking.

williamglenn said:

RH1992 said:

Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.

The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.

Jury voting odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision-jury

Overall odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision

So have the jury already voted behind closed doors?

Gardenwalker said:

Good evening.

I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.

When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good evening.

I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.

When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!

Maybe they need to hold an election to see what people in NI think about the protocol.

StuartDickson said:

RobD said:

Carnyx said:

williamglenn said:

StuartDickson said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

You're right (for once) it's nothing to do with them, it's what we call a 'statement of fact.'

If Sweden wishes to apply for NATO membership that's their choice. But as Putin sees it as deliberately provocative and in effect an act of war, merely mentioning it has already buggered the 200 year policy you refer to.

So I say again - having started, you will not be safe if you stop.

Unless, of course, you vote for union with Russia.

Union with the blue mass-murder team or union with the red mass-murder team? Choices, choices…

Bad news. That is your choice now. It is not a choice you want to make, and who can blame you? But that's the situation Andersson and her government faces. It's not difficult to understand why she's made the choice she has.

Magdalena Andersson is not a dictator. We’ll see where we end up. But rest assured that we Swedes will decide, so you can keep your wise counsel to yourself.

"We Swedes"? I thought you were Scottish!

I’m both.

Are you not also British by citizenship?

No such thing. UK. 'British' doesn't exist, except [edit] by subtraction insofar as th epoor sods who are born in GB don't have the Irish option.

Says British in my passport.

If it said Knob, would that make it true?

StuartDickson said:

RH1992 said:

Eurovision post. The jury final (which acts as a dress rehearsal) just happened and all 25 countries performed in their order that they'll appear on TV tomorrow.

The betting suggests the UK will win the jury vote and having looked at Twitter from fellow enthusiasts and experts there, it looks like the UK act did very well and they remain favourite to win that part of the vote. The jury counts for 50% of the final vote so the public vote going overwhelmingly for Ukraine, if as expected, still means they're hot favourites.

Jury voting odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision-jury

Overall odds: https://eurovisionworld.com/odds/eurovision

Funnily enough, the Yookay is drifting. Now out to 9.2

StuartDickson said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

Burgessian said:

StuartDickson said:

From 12 years ago:

The leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, is highly critical of the threat by Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to expel over 100,000 Armenians living in Turkey.

https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/3567084

How do you think this will play in Sweden @StuartDickson ?

I seem to remember you were highly sceptical about Sweden wishing to join NATO. Times have changed, of course...

Not sure about the “highly”, but I am a sceptic by nature 😉

My main concern is the unseemly rush, much worse in Finland than in Sweden. Just that alone was always going to be problematic for certain NATO members: most folk don’t like being pushed into sudden drastic changes.

I will certainly admit that I misjudged Swedish public opinion, but in my defence the opinion polling of the last few decades has never indicated enthusiasm for joining NATO. Quite the opposite.

How will it play in Sweden: a hell of a lot of people are going to be mighty relieved! But the majority (probably the majority?) are going to be very worried now. Andersson and the Borgerliga parties seem to have made an historic error of judgment that very seriously threatens Sweden and Finland’s security. Boris Johnson is just a here today/gone tomorrow politician, and our PMs must be rueing the day they entertained the Clown.

Hmm. "Unseemly rush". But surely if you're gonna do it, do it now when Putin is up to his oxters and can't, practically, do much about it. No? Why wait?

Imagine that England was not a member of a major international body, and opinion polling during many decades has shown that the population were perfectly happy not being members of the international body. Then, very suddenly, something unexpected happens that induces many elected parliamentarians to completely change their minds on membership. Now, this is a big deal: if England joins she will gain some rights and privileges which could/might prove useful. On the other hand there come some very cumbersome responsibilities and costs too. Should the politicians just “jump” the electorate into their brand new lust for membership? Or should the nation have a civilised debate about the pros and cons and take a calm decision at a referendum?

I consider the “jumping” of the Finnish and Swedish nations to be an undemocratic national disgrace. Both countries should be ashamed of themselves. Turkey might just have done us a big favour.

You don't think that the threat of invasion and what has happened in Ukraine might have had just a little to do with the decision? And since when was it undemocratic to listen to the wishes of your population? I think the only one who should be ashamed around here is you.

I also think Stuart is rather overlooking the time element. As Ukraine demonstrates, if you announce you are considering joining NATO Putin will attack at once to make you change your mind.

Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.

As to Erdogan, I suspect he is partly sabre rattling for domestic consumption and partly trying to wring a few concessions on these Kurdish groups from the Finns and Swedes in advance of these talks. Hard to believe that if every other NATO member votes aye and the USA indicates this is what he wants that he will try to veto.

Edit - that was a Freudian slip but I like it so much I'm leaving it in!

- “Finland and Sweden won't now be safe until they are under the NATO umbrella.”

Sweden hasn’t been at war for over 200 years. We have been safe without the mass-murder weapons.

All this pseudo-concern for us Swedes and Finns is very touching. Nothing to do with English domestic politics of course. Perish the thought.

williamglenn said:

ydoethur said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good evening.

I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.

When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!

Maybe they need to hold an election to see what people in NI think about the protocol.

I'm just surprised to learn they have a fecking plan...

There was a poignant Australian song in the 90s with the refrain:

I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Yeah, I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Or I'll be struck down, struck down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QcHjcMUz_4

dixiedean said:

williamglenn said:

ydoethur said:

EPG said:

Gardenwalker said:

Good evening.

I see the government’s plan for Northern Ireland is unravelling again.

When oh when will they listen to Barty Bobbins? We hold all the cards!

Maybe they need to hold an election to see what people in NI think about the protocol.

I'm just surprised to learn they have a fecking plan...

There was a poignant Australian song in the 90s with the refrain:

I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Yeah, I've got another plan - this time it'll work
Or I'll be struck down, struck down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QcHjcMUz_4

The Leader by Roger McGough.

I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader

OK what shall we do?

rottenborough said:

"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."

Telegraph

rottenborough said:

Not sure going to war with the civil service ends well for fag end governments.

rottenborough said:

"Mr Rees-Mogg said he would also examine Met Office weather reports over suggestions [civil servant] officials were staying at home on the sunniest days."

Telegraph