The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
It's currently the lead story in Der Spiegel and was tweeted out to 3 million followers.
(My own view: the question was poorly phrased. The interviewee gave a perfectly sensible answer.)
"they might not know about the holocaust".....
Not straightforward. Consensus view seems to be: holocaust worst thing any group of people has ever done to another ever, no exceptions; triangular trade a minor blemish (if even that, judged by the standards of its time) on the record of the Greatest Force For Good And Civilization In All Of History, Do You Hear Me? If I were black I think I'd be noticing that one crime was white on white, and one not.
Then the question should have been: "Can you think of a black mathematician?"
If that is what they wanted, then the question was ill-formed, as a pre-war Jewish woman in Germany who contributed theorems to maths (*) *is* diverse, as in she was unusual from the norm.
(*) Ones even I have heard of, even if I couldn't explain them...
Seems pretty obviously a case of the question being coded, and they got stuck when someone answered it as it was framed.
I was on a diversity course once where I was told that having Jewish heritage didn't count. There's definitely a bit of an issue with some people who have a non-diverse view of what diversity is.
I agree with others that if, for example, Sadiq Khan was on the verge of becoming Labour leader more would be made of it than is the case with Sunak now, both in a positive way and in a negative way.
I've been told on a few occasions that I'm not an ethnic minority because of my middle class upbringing/schooling means I've never experienced racism or bigotry.
Some of the responses from lefty Twitter in the last couple of weeks, to the diversity of the Tory leadership candidates, have been utterly horrific.
They go on all day about racism and sexism, yet appear to have a massive blind spot to the racism and sexism emanating from their own tribe.
Too many Tweets, might make a tw@
Kemi Badenoch is apparently the face of white supremacy.
Brought to you by the same sort of people who claim Ben Shapiro is a Nazi......annoying smug right winger, but the kippah is a bit of a give away that Adolf Hitler might not be his hero.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
The twitter is Der Spiegel, a major German news magazine. You can actually follow media from foreign countries using twitter.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
It's currently the lead story in Der Spiegel and was tweeted out to 3 million followers.
I trust that Der Spiegel despite its name does not reflect the views of ordinary Germans.
Perhaps she thinks Truss will beat Rishi, fall flat on her face, Labour will get a 15 to 20% poll lead and Tory MPs will then VONC Truss and elect her by coronation by next autumn in blind panic?
Penny Mordaunt has the same plan as Boris. Have they ever been seen together?
(My own view: the question was poorly phrased. The interviewee gave a perfectly sensible answer.)
"they might not know about the holocaust".....
Not straightforward. Consensus view seems to be: holocaust worst thing any group of people has ever done to another ever, no exceptions; triangular trade a minor blemish (if even that, judged by the standards of its time) on the record of the Greatest Force For Good And Civilization In All Of History, Do You Hear Me? If I were black I think I'd be noticing that one crime was white on white, and one not.
Then the question should have been: "Can you think of a black mathematician?"
If that is what they wanted, then the question was ill-formed, as a pre-war Jewish woman in Germany who contributed theorems to maths (*) *is* diverse, as in she was unusual from the norm.
(*) Ones even I have heard of, even if I couldn't explain them...
Seems pretty obviously a case of the question being coded, and they got stuck when someone answered it as it was framed.
I was on a diversity course once where I was told that having Jewish heritage didn't count. There's definitely a bit of an issue with some people who have a non-diverse view of what diversity is.
I agree with others that if, for example, Sadiq Khan was on the verge of becoming Labour leader more would be made of it than is the case with Sunak now, both in a positive way and in a negative way.
I've been told on a few occasions that I'm not an ethnic minority because of my middle class upbringing/schooling means I've never experienced racism or bigotry.
Some of the responses from lefty Twitter in the last couple of weeks, to the diversity of the Tory leadership candidates, have been utterly horrific.
They go on all day about racism and sexism, yet appear to have a massive blind spot to the racism and sexism emanating from their own tribe.
Too many Tweets, might make a tw@
Kemi Badenoch is apparently the face of white supremacy.
Uncle Tom and House Negro are pretty common assessments.
Weirdly they are also two of the names Radiohead started out as but they didn’t work.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Just shown that photo to my wife. She said "it must be a spoof". I said "I don't think it is". She exploded. Possibly trivial, but ye gods - five men in suits being poured tea by a diminutive woman doesn't look very modern.
Maybe Nus Ghani is pouring the tea because Nus Ghani wanted to pour the tea.
Yes, I'm sure that's true; I'll bet she volunteered before any of the chaps.
I've shown that picture to my mother her take on it.
White men/people cannot make tea properly, it is inevitable that that the Pakistani heritage person offered to make the tea before anyone else did.
Oi! Some of us make brilliant tea.
Admittedly my grandmother was from China. I don't know if that makes a difference.
But even my other grandmother always let me pour the tea. She wouldn't yield it to anyone else, but she said I was just too good.
I don't drink tea or coffee but before the pandemic I hired a new member of staff who it turned out was a milk in firster.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
The twitter is Der Spiegel, a major German news magazine. You can actually follow media from foreign countries using twitter.
Yea, I worked that one out. It is just that @williamglenn has become the anti-Christ to @Scott_xP . But then I guess even you worked out that was what I was saying.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
It's currently the lead story in Der Spiegel and was tweeted out to 3 million followers.
I guess you are a regular subscriber? or perhaps only pick them up when there is a xenophobic story to get yourself in a Brexity lather
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
It's currently the lead story in Der Spiegel and was tweeted out to 3 million followers.
I guess you are a regular subscriber? or perhaps only pick them up when there is a xenophobic story to get yourself in a Brexity lather
That's just popped up in my Twitter feed, I'm just generally following stuff about Ukraine.
That polling isn’t a big surprise . Most Remainers think Sunak will be more pragmatic and won’t embark on several more years of anti EU rhetoric , and overall will be less divisive . With Truss now owned by the ERG and right wing of the party she’ll dance to their tune and there’ll be more years of divisive politics and anti EU hysteria .
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Do you have an alert system for twitter quotes that will make Europhobes/xenophobes/Francophobes/Germanophobes spit out their tea? I mean, where do you come across this type of "news"? Do you have a friend who works for the Daily Express?
It's currently the lead story in Der Spiegel and was tweeted out to 3 million followers.
I guess you are a regular subscriber? or perhaps only pick them up when there is a xenophobic story to get yourself in a Brexity lather
Britain should take a bit more pride in how it helped to rebuild Germany, and helped create a democratic German society, after the war, as opposed to pride in only winning the war itself. Interesting that Der Spiegel was established by the British Occupation.
Just shown that photo to my wife. She said "it must be a spoof". I said "I don't think it is". She exploded. Possibly trivial, but ye gods - five men in suits being poured tea by a diminutive woman doesn't look very modern.
Maybe Nus Ghani is pouring the tea because Nus Ghani wanted to pour the tea.
Yes, I'm sure that's true; I'll bet she volunteered before any of the chaps.
I've shown that picture to my mother her take on it.
White men/people cannot make tea properly, it is inevitable that that the Pakistani heritage person offered to make the tea before anyone else did.
Oi! Some of us make brilliant tea.
Admittedly my grandmother was from China. I don't know if that makes a difference.
But even my other grandmother always let me pour the tea. She wouldn't yield it to anyone else, but she said I was just too good.
I don't drink tea or coffee but before the pandemic I hired a new member of staff who it turned out was a milk in firster.
Sunak should just spend the next six weeks saying 'Truss was a strong Remainer' and 'her tax plans will fuck up your pension because there will be a run on the £"
But one thing we should always remember - if Truss does make PM, opinions on her in a year's time will be 99% based on what she does as PM and how the country does and 1% based on what people think of her now.
So it's not an absolute certainty she will be a disaster. She may grow into the role and perform better than expected. And she may get some luck - eg if war in Ukraine ends and inflation comes down quicker than expected,.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
That polling isn’t a big surprise . Most Remainers think Sunak will be more pragmatic and won’t embark on several more years of anti EU rhetoric , and overall will be less divisive . With Truss now owned by the ERG and right wing of the party she’ll dance to their tune and there’ll be more years of divisive politics and anti EU hysteria .
Dom posted earlier on his blog I think that loads of Leavers in the membership bizarrely think Truss was a Leaver rather than a strong Remainer. He thinks when the penny drops the results will "surprise SW1".
It is Truss showing a Johnson like naked opportunism. She abandoned the Lib Dems and Republicanism when the penny dropped that the chance of being MP was much less as with the Lib Dems than with the Conservatives.
She was staunchly Remain while it was Tory policy, then staunchly Leave when that became policy.
A staunch member of the May cabinet, then a staunch Johnson supporter...
By appearing to be shooting all around the globe trying to get deals to make Brexit work she was able to kind of erase the "original sin" of actually being a Remainer.
Just shown that photo to my wife. She said "it must be a spoof". I said "I don't think it is". She exploded. Possibly trivial, but ye gods - five men in suits being poured tea by a diminutive woman doesn't look very modern.
Maybe Nus Ghani is pouring the tea because Nus Ghani wanted to pour the tea.
Yes, I'm sure that's true; I'll bet she volunteered before any of the chaps.
I've shown that picture to my mother her take on it.
White men/people cannot make tea properly, it is inevitable that that the Pakistani heritage person offered to make the tea before anyone else did.
Oi! Some of us make brilliant tea.
Admittedly my grandmother was from China. I don't know if that makes a difference.
But even my other grandmother always let me pour the tea. She wouldn't yield it to anyone else, but she said I was just too good.
I don't drink tea or coffee but before the pandemic I hired a new member of staff who it turned out was a milk in firster.
It nearly incited a riot at work.
That's how you make a latte though.
Milk in last for a flat white.
Coffee is not tea. Different rules apply.
Hence why I said that to a post that said "tea or coffee".
And another reason why coffee is better than tea, no reason to be pretentious with arguments, you can do it either way around but they're different drinks not the same one.
But one thing we should always remember - if Truss does make PM, opinions on her in a year's time will be 99% based on what she does as PM and how the country does and 1% based on what people think of her now.
So it's not an absolute certainty she will be a disaster. She may grow into the role and perform better than expected. And she may get some luck - eg if war in Ukraine ends and inflation comes down quicker than expected,.
And I might be the next Chief of Ofsted.*
Some things just don't happen.
*I would be so much better than the current incumbent I would never even be considered for fear of causing extreme embarrassment to many powerful people.
I came back to the site because I thought there was something worth fighting for in avoiding Truss or Sunak. The Tory party is now royally fucked. If the answer is Truss or Sunak. God help us.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
....The IQA said a second reason for the name change was trademarks and licensing. The trademark for “quidditch” is owned by the Warner Bros. entertainment company, and organizers want to use the quadball trademark to continue to grow the game “into a mainstay of organized sports.”...
arhhhhh so its really about the monies, but you are going to virtue signal.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
I think you will find Poland, UK, US and others are doing what Ukraine want.
Saxony or other Putin-apologists like you seeking to "end the war" even if its "bitter for Ukraine" can go to hell.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
My arms length is apparently going to offer an insulting 2% rise. Maybe they’ll pull a rabbit and hand out more but I doubt it. Going to start reaching out to contacts if this is confirmed. A great job that doesn’t pay the bills is a hobby, and 2% is going to wipe out my disposable income after gas prices go up. Sod this silly government’s war on public servants.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
It is Truss showing a Johnson like naked opportunism. She abandoned the Lib Dems and Republicanism when the penny dropped that the chance of being MP was much less as with the Lib Dems than with the Conservatives.
She was staunchly Remain while it was Tory policy, then staunchly Leave when that became policy.
A staunch member of the May cabinet, then a staunch Johnson supporter...
I think the job will send her bonkers within months personally. Leadership election next summer.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Starmer will step in after Truss exacerbates a bad economic situation, will ride the regression to mean, just like Cameron and the Tories will spend a decade in the wilderness. Sorry your party is fucked.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Interesting that you didn't name the country that has actually turned Ukraine into a war zone.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Interesting that you didn't name the country that has actually turned Ukraine into a war zone.
I am *really* surprised LG did not mention Russia as the aggressor. Did you not know that Ukraine is actually part of Russia, and therefore Ukraine is hitting itself?
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
....The IQA said a second reason for the name change was trademarks and licensing. The trademark for “quidditch” is owned by the Warner Bros. entertainment company, and organizers want to use the quadball trademark to continue to grow the game “into a mainstay of organized sports.”...
arhhhhh so its really about the monies, but you are going to virtue signal.
Have they developed working flying broomsticks?! If so, I’d focus on selling then rather than the sport.
They just have done so, it would just be lacrosse….
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
I think you will find Poland, UK, US and others are doing what Ukraine want.
Saxony or other Putin-apologists like you seeking to "end the war" even if its "bitter for Ukraine" can go to hell.
I can't see any way that there would be to establish what Ukrainians want.
And I find your sympathy for the plight of the Ukrainians (so long as they continue to be the foot soldiers in a proxy war with Russia on their turf) to be more than a little synthetic.
Like Iraq, there seems to be no end game here. If we want to repel Russia back to it's starting point (or beyond), what will that require, and can we do it? And when can we do it by? The current plan seems to be to engage in a permanent conflict whilst Ukraine (and the world economy) burns. That's not acceptable.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Before opinion polls, but Asquith never won the popular vote at a general election.
Not sure where to get a reliable historical time series but Eden is possible. It was midterm when he took over and I can imagine Labour might have been leading, and then….
Edit - no Eden went to the country didn’t he? Ignore me.
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Starmer will step in after Truss exacerbates a bad economic situation, will ride the regression to mean, just like Cameron and the Tories will spend a decade in the wilderness. Sorry your party is fucked.
And here's a bold prediction; after those years in the wilderness, both the Conservative Party and the country will be in a better position. Just like they were in 2010 after 13 years in the wilderness.
And it goes the other way as well: I think a Starmer government will be fresher and more cohesive than the tired and split Brown government in 2010.
Parties are better for a period in opposition and some serious reflection. (I'm unsure this follows for the US, though...)
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Before opinion polls, but Asquith never won the popular vote at a general election.
Neither did Churchill
Good point, but I'm sure there were Tory leads in the opinion polls.
Yes, according to the Wikipedia lists.
But just imagine- often only one poll a month in those days. What on earth would a late 1940's PB.com (a noticeboard in the lobby of a moderately respectable gentleman's club, I like to imagine) have discussed all day?
It will be Truss for PM because the "Conservative" selectorate are crazier than swivel-eyed loons. On the plus side, we will be shot of the Bluekippers at the next election because, if we though Boris was bad, the vacuous Truss will glow dimly in comparison.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Interesting that you didn't name the country that has actually turned Ukraine into a war zone.
I don't feel the need to preface all my posts with a 'Russia-bad' disclaimer to avoid giving offence. Yes Russia turned it into a warzone when it invaded. True though it is, 'But he started it Mum' isn't an effective solution here.
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Starmer will step in after Truss exacerbates a bad economic situation, will ride the regression to mean, just like Cameron and the Tories will spend a decade in the wilderness. Sorry your party is fucked.
And here's a bold prediction; after those years in the wilderness, both the Conservative Party and the country will be in a better position. Just like they were in 2010 after 13 years in the wilderness.
And it goes the other way as well: I think a Starmer government will be fresher and more cohesive than the tired and split Brown government in 2010.
Parties are better for a period in opposition and some serious reflection. (I'm unsure this follows for the US, though...)
That’s an entirely reasonable position and I agree.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
Inevitable? On what borders? The current ones? The Russians have used up their best kit whilst Ukraine is now getting far superior western stuff. They are also training a large new military. There is nothing 'inevitable' about how this ends.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
"We are Bellingcat" shows how Bellingcat works. It might also show you why your constant parroting of Russia's line over MH17 was both wrong and sickening.
Rishi is in a bit in the betting: 11/8 from 6/4 earlier this afternoon.
I think he's slightly value at the moment but not enough for me to start fiddling with my all green outcome on this one where whoever wins I pocket ≈£100.
It is Truss showing a Johnson like naked opportunism. She abandoned the Lib Dems and Republicanism when the penny dropped that the chance of being MP was much less as with the Lib Dems than with the Conservatives.
She was staunchly Remain while it was Tory policy, then staunchly Leave when that became policy.
A staunch member of the May cabinet, then a staunch Johnson supporter...
I think the job will send her bonkers within months personally. Leadership election next summer.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
Inevitable? On what borders? The current ones? The Russians have used up their best kit whilst Ukraine is now getting far superior western stuff. They are also training a large new military. There is nothing 'inevitable' about how this ends.
My impression is that Ukraine is having some impressive tactical victories based on superior Western kit, and their strategy of destroying Russian ammo is the right one. That said, the Western kit being provided is expensive and takes a long time to manufacture, and what's going to Ukraine is a world less than what they're asking for. Russia on the other hand seem to be still being a bit crap and stuck in the dark ages, but they have vastly greater production capacity for ammunition, and can keep resupplying in real time. To me, that adds up to slow, costly, destructive Russian progress in its territorial goals.
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Well, I'll be voting Sunak (assuming no massive revelations about his wife's tax affairs), and I confidently expect to the on the losing side. Again.
With the next GE giving you another such opportunity…
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer: - The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison - If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either - The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising - A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature - Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Starmer will step in after Truss exacerbates a bad economic situation, will ride the regression to mean, just like Cameron and the Tories will spend a decade in the wilderness. Sorry your party is fucked.
And here's a bold prediction; after those years in the wilderness, both the Conservative Party and the country will be in a better position. Just like they were in 2010 after 13 years in the wilderness.
And it goes the other way as well: I think a Starmer government will be fresher and more cohesive than the tired and split Brown government in 2010.
Parties are better for a period in opposition and some serious reflection. (I'm unsure this follows for the US, though...)
That’s an entirely reasonable position and I agree.
It's the exact same position as my original post, with which you (seemed to) disagree(d). Make up your mind.
Also, it doesn't apply to the US, because of their multi-branch system of government, which means no party is ever properly in opposition for long.
It will be Truss for PM because the "Conservative" selectorate are crazier than swivel-eyed loons. On the plus side, we will be shot of the Bluekippers at the next election because, if we though Boris was bad, the vacuous Truss will glow dimly in comparison.
Jo Swinson was the Flight of Icarus. Boris Johnson was a Neutron Star spaffing out material in all direction, and now we face the Liz Truss Black Dwarf star. Growing ever colder and ever dimmer, radiating its remaining heat from the dying core of the Conservative Party.
US House rollcall on HR 8404 - Respect for Marriage Act Yea 267 = 220 Democrats + 47 Republicans Nay 157 = 157 Republicans Not Voting 7 = 7 Republicans
Note the pattern of Republicans who voted FOR the act, designed to safeguard gay marriage.
Perhaps most interesting (to me anyway) is unanimous GOP vote for HR 8404 by Utah delegation, plus the GOP congressman from southern Idaho which is also notable for LARGE majority of members of church formerly called Mormon.
Also note that in WA State the yea Republican vote, cast by Dan Newhouse, who also voted to impeach Trump and is running for reelection, in a very conservative district. The other GOPer who voted for impeachment, Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is also running for reelection, voted nay, but she is an evangelical Christian.
Both DN and JHB are on the ballot in ongoing August 2 WA State Primary. Which is Top Two deal, like (sorta) the Tory leadership MP vote, except just one FPTP round.
Rishi is in a bit in the betting: 11/8 from 6/4 earlier this afternoon.
I think he's slightly value at the moment but not enough for me to start fiddling with my all green outcome on this one where whoever wins I pocket ≈£100.
Maybe. I've been trying to think how this might develop and would suggest the Truss camp has been more willing so far to throw mud, principally at Penny Mordaunt, which might lead Rishi to move back out in the betting, as would a repeat of the Yougov or ConHome polls showing Truss more popular with the members, although polling the wider electorate might favour Sunak. So dunno.
But this makes me wonder if the Conservatives have made another mistake in letting the members vote. Not because the members might choose the wrong one, but because it means another two months of Rishi and Liz attacking each other's economic policy.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Before opinion polls, but Asquith never won the popular vote at a general election.
Neither did Churchill
Good point, but I'm sure there were Tory leads in the opinion polls.
Yes, according to the Wikipedia lists.
But just imagine- often only one poll a month in those days. What on earth would a late 1940's PB.com (a noticeboard in the lobby of a moderately respectable gentleman's club, I like to imagine) have discussed all day?
Instead of politicalbetting.com it would have been politicalbetting.chart
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
"Only I can beat Starmer", which both candidates seem to be majoring on, turns Starmer into someone far more formidable than he actually is. Labour will love five weeks of that. This kind of campaigning is where Johnson is so much better than all the other Tories. He would not be making such a basic error.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
Inevitable? On what borders? The current ones? The Russians have used up their best kit whilst Ukraine is now getting far superior western stuff. They are also training a large new military. There is nothing 'inevitable' about how this ends.
Ukraine have been bombing the bridge out of Kherson. It now looks like Swiss cheese.
If I was a Russian stationed in the city I would be tugging my collar nervously.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Interesting that you didn't name the country that has actually turned Ukraine into a war zone.
I don't feel the need to preface all my posts with a 'Russia-bad' disclaimer to avoid giving offence. Yes Russia turned it into a warzone when it invaded. True though it is, 'But he started it Mum' isn't an effective solution here.
Putin wants to steal all of Ukraine.
You don't stop him by letting him steal part of Ukraine.
Giles Wilkes Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
Home, I would have thought. He took over when there was a huge gap and although he closed it rapidly I don't know if he ever pulled ahead. If he did, it was one or two right at the end.
Home led in the polls, IIRC it was after the dissolution in 1964.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
Before opinion polls, but Asquith never won the popular vote at a general election.
Neither did Churchill
Good point, but I'm sure there were Tory leads in the opinion polls.
Yes, according to the Wikipedia lists.
But just imagine- often only one poll a month in those days. What on earth would a late 1940's PB.com (a noticeboard in the lobby of a moderately respectable gentleman's club, I like to imagine) have discussed all day?
We would be betting on which members of Attlee's cabinet would be trying to kill each other that day.
Let's hope it isn't an all-white football team tonight in the England vs Spain women's match in case the BBC is offended again.
Actually, it's quite interesting that the English women's football team is so different from the men's in respect of its players' heritages. Why is that? I don't know. In this tournament, France has the most diverse team, similar to its men's team. But most of the other women's teams are homogenously white. Why is that? There's nothing wrong in the ethnic make-up of teams being a topic for discussion, especially when there's such a divergence from men's football.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Interesting that you didn't name the country that has actually turned Ukraine into a war zone.
I don't feel the need to preface all my posts with a 'Russia-bad' disclaimer to avoid giving offence. Yes Russia turned it into a warzone when it invaded. True though it is, 'But he started it Mum' isn't an effective solution here.
Putin wants to steal all of Ukraine.
You don't stop him by letting him steal part of Ukraine.
Yes, that really would be the Sudeten crisis all over again.
Particularly as Putin has now been strongly reminded he can't reunite Russia without the Baltics and that his allies in Belarusia and Kazakhstan can't be relied on to be his puppets.
For any tory member toying with a vote for Truss in next few weeks, I offer this. This is what we will be getting at every major public speaking event. I kinda feel for her, not being too good at this stuff myself, but this is just jaw-dropping awful. And it's not even the content - it's the stilted, odd, hesitant, weird MayBot delivery.
Hannah Jane Parkinson @ladyhaja Obvs the Liz Truss cheese speech is now more iconic than Churchill’s beaches – but I still don’t think the *level* of cringe/nonsense/hilarity is appreciated enough. Most clips don’t even get to the Isaac Newton apples bit. I will simply never get over this performance.
Let's hope it isn't an all-white football team tonight in the England vs Spain women's match in case the BBC is offended again.
Actually, it's quite interesting that the English women's football team is so different from the men's in respect of its players' heritages. Why is that? I don't know. In this tournament, France has the most diverse team, similar to its men's team. But most of the other women's teams are homogenously white. Why is that? There's nothing wrong in the ethnic make-up of teams being a topic for discussion, especially when there's such a divergence from men's football.
It could just be that sporty girls have a much wider choice in England. There's not much hockey or netball in France, for example.
Let's hope it isn't an all-white football team tonight in the England vs Spain women's match in case the BBC is offended again.
Actually, it's quite interesting that the English women's football team is so different from the men's in respect of its players' heritages. Why is that? I don't know. In this tournament, France has the most diverse team, similar to its men's team. But most of the other women's teams are homogenously white. Why is that? There's nothing wrong in the ethnic make-up of teams being a topic for discussion, especially when there's such a divergence from men's football.
I would guess the (limited) amount of money available to turn pro, meaning only wealthier women who are disproportionately white can afford it. But I could be doing the FA a disservice there.
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
"Only I can beat Starmer", which both candidates seem to be majoring on, turns Starmer into someone far more formidable than he actually is. Labour will love five weeks of that. This kind of campaigning is where Johnson is so much better than all the other Tories. He would not be making such a basic error.
Nah, I remember a fair bit of "Only Boris can beat Corbyn", as well as its rarer sibling, "Only Boris can beet Farage".
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
"Only I can beat Starmer", which both candidates seem to be majoring on, turns Starmer into someone far more formidable than he actually is. Labour will love five weeks of that. This kind of campaigning is where Johnson is so much better than all the other Tories. He would not be making such a basic error.
I'd only add that voters might be more impressed if they both majored on what they're going to do now to sort out the mess that the country is in, if appointed, rather than talking about the next GE.
While ballots will be sent out immediately, members will be able to vote both online or by post. Crucially, only the last ballot received by CCHQ will count...This means any member who votes early and then experiences buyer’s remorse will have the option to override it. This is no doubt a positive revelation for Sunak’s team. Every little helps…
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
"Only I can beat Starmer", which both candidates seem to be majoring on, turns Starmer into someone far more formidable than he actually is. Labour will love five weeks of that. This kind of campaigning is where Johnson is so much better than all the other Tories. He would not be making such a basic error.
Nah, I remember a fair bit of "Only Boris can beat Corbyn", as well as its rarer sibling, "Only Boris can beet Farage".
Johnson's approach was to attack Corbyn by laughing at him, not making him out to seem like some kind of almost unbeatable colossus.
The Minister-President of Saxony says that the "conflict" in Ukraine should be frozen with Germany acting as an intermediary, even if it would be "bitter for Ukraine".
Delusional from Germany. They're not in a place to make that happen when Poland, UK, US and others are determined on a different course.
Certainly delusional for Saxony, the days of Augustus the Strong are long gone.
I think you might find it's actually up to Ukraine. 'Poland, UK, US and others' don't have the automatic right to turn their country into a permanent warzone.
Russia does though.....and has taken its chance.
The fuckers.
No, they don't, and the invasion is wrong and for loyal Ukrainians who live in Russian-occupied areas it's shit.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
Inevitable? On what borders? The current ones? The Russians have used up their best kit whilst Ukraine is now getting far superior western stuff. They are also training a large new military. There is nothing 'inevitable' about how this ends.
My impression is that Ukraine is having some impressive tactical victories based on superior Western kit, and their strategy of destroying Russian ammo is the right one. That said, the Western kit being provided is expensive and takes a long time to manufacture, and what's going to Ukraine is a world less than what they're asking for. Russia on the other hand seem to be still being a bit crap and stuck in the dark ages, but they have vastly greater production capacity for ammunition, and can keep resupplying in real time. To me, that adds up to slow, costly, destructive Russian progress in its territorial goals.
Its territorial ambitions was the seizure of Kiev and the complete southern coast all the way to Transnistria cutting off Ukraine from the sea.
It is currently going backwards and will probably lose Kherson in a couple of months
Dominic Cummings @Dominic2306 · 3h Totally on-brand for ERG to back a truly useless Remainer who did nothing in govt except gabble with hacks cos she’s reassuringly mad behind the eyes. 🤡 🤡 🤡🤡🤡
Sunak seems to be majoring on who is the best person to beat Starmer.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
"Only I can beat Starmer", which both candidates seem to be majoring on, turns Starmer into someone far more formidable than he actually is. Labour will love five weeks of that. This kind of campaigning is where Johnson is so much better than all the other Tories. He would not be making such a basic error.
I'd only add that voters might be more impressed if they both majored on what they're going to do now to sort out the mess that the country is in, if appointed, rather than talking about the next GE.
What do you expect from a couple of self-obsessed, non-entities? If they learned anything from Boris it is the importance of self-promotion as a distraction tool. It would never do to have the voters demand that the country's problems be fixed... that would require ability, skill and talent!
Comments
Striking thing in YouGov Tory member polling is the Brexit split.
Remainer Truss gets 61% of Leavers
Leaver Sunak gets 66% of Remainers
Sunak’s problem is the Remainer pool is smaller.
So you’ll hear a lot about Truss as a former Lib Dem Remainer republican…
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1549775488356388865?cxt=HHwWgsC4kY-m9IErAAAA
https://twitter.com/dan_tomlinson_/status/1549813741788749824
Giles Wilkes
Has there ever been as Prime Minister that never enjoyed a lead in the polls for a single day? Just curious
The obvious person is Brown and then Callaghan - i.e. people who took power after an election but lost the subsequent one.
But both of those had poll leads at some point during their time as PM so any ideas of other (earlier before my time) options?
"I'll tell you who else was from Germany and bitter for Ukraine.."
Milk in last for a flat white.
Your response strikes me as quite insular.
But one thing we should always remember - if Truss does make PM, opinions on her in a year's time will be 99% based on what she does as PM and how the country does and 1% based on what people think of her now.
So it's not an absolute certainty she will be a disaster. She may grow into the role and perform better than expected. And she may get some luck - eg if war in Ukraine ends and inflation comes down quicker than expected,.
She was staunchly Remain while it was Tory policy, then staunchly Leave when that became policy.
A staunch member of the May cabinet, then a staunch Johnson supporter...
By appearing to be shooting all around the globe trying to get deals to make Brexit work she was able to kind of erase the "original sin" of actually being a Remainer.
And another reason why coffee is better than tea, no reason to be pretentious with arguments, you can do it either way around but they're different drinks not the same one.
Some things just don't happen.
*I would be so much better than the current incumbent I would never even be considered for fear of causing extreme embarrassment to many powerful people.
Signing off and vack to obscurity.
Callaghan led in the polls before the winter of disconnect.
Brown famously led in the polls which led to talk about a snap election.
One Labour MP even wrote this seldom linked magnum opus.
We cannot be killed
'Shortly there will be an election, in which Labour will increase its majority'
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/07/20/quidditch-quadball-name-change-jk-rowling/
....The IQA said a second reason for the name change was trademarks and licensing. The trademark for “quidditch” is owned by the Warner Bros. entertainment company, and organizers want to use the quadball trademark to continue to grow the game “into a mainstay of organized sports.”...
arhhhhh so its really about the monies, but you are going to virtue signal.
The fuckers.
Douglas-Home had leads in late August / September 1964
Saxony or other Putin-apologists like you seeking to "end the war" even if its "bitter for Ukraine" can go to hell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1964_United_Kingdom_general_election
Mea culpa.
But the facts above remain. A partition of Ukraine like Germany looks inevitable; better from the perspective of mainland Europe to decide to do it now, rather than from an even weaker perspective in Winter.
I've mostly come to terms with PM Starmer:
- The Conservatives can't win every time; sooner or later the country needs a reminder as to how bad the other lot are by comparison
- If we have to have a Labour PM every so often, Starmer is one of the least awful choices, and Reeves isn't totally obnoxious either
- The current Conservative voting coalition is probably too broad and needs some rationalising
- A lot of the younger talent hasn't been in the Commons long and needs time to mature
- Kemi ideally needs the extended apprenticeship as LotO that Cameron had to be truly effective as PM. There's no sense wasting her in a John Major-like capacity
So the plan is: Truss for a few years, Starmer for five disastrous years to wreck Labour's reputation for a generation, then two glorious decades of Kemi. Who's with me???
Before opinion polls, but Asquith never won the popular vote at a general election.
They just have done so, it would just be lacrosse….
And I find your sympathy for the plight of the Ukrainians (so long as they continue to be the foot soldiers in a proxy war with Russia on their turf) to be more than a little synthetic.
Like Iraq, there seems to be no end game here. If we want to repel Russia back to it's starting point (or beyond), what will that require, and can we do it? And when can we do it by? The current plan seems to be to engage in a permanent conflict whilst Ukraine (and the world economy) burns. That's not acceptable.
The Michael Portillo website looks like it hasn't been updated since about 1996 in terms of style/layout.
http://www.michaelportillo.co.uk
Edit - no Eden went to the country didn’t he? Ignore me.
And it goes the other way as well: I think a Starmer government will be fresher and more cohesive than the tired and split Brown government in 2010.
Parties are better for a period in opposition and some serious reflection. (I'm unsure this follows for the US, though...)
But just imagine- often only one poll a month in those days. What on earth would a late 1940's PB.com (a noticeboard in the lobby of a moderately respectable gentleman's club, I like to imagine) have discussed all day?
And I thought my website was bad (it is...)
https://www.bellingcat.com/book/
"We are Bellingcat" shows how Bellingcat works. It might also show you why your constant parroting of Russia's line over MH17 was both wrong and sickening.
Not that you admit that.
Maybe later he will go for the kill over Truss being a Remainer who somehow the membership need to forgive her original sin and put her first?
Let Keir and his LD and SNP friends sort it out.
Then #Kemi29! 👍
Also, it doesn't apply to the US, because of their multi-branch system of government, which means no party is ever properly in opposition for long.
The dreamy Professor Brian Cox is here to describe the coming Truss government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Untoik6c_gs
(This is a joke, for the avoidance of any possible doubt.)
Yea 267 = 220 Democrats + 47 Republicans
Nay 157 = 157 Republicans
Not Voting 7 = 7 Republicans
Check out this very interesting map
https://i.redd.it/ql56f8k9gqc91.jpg
Note the pattern of Republicans who voted FOR the act, designed to safeguard gay marriage.
Perhaps most interesting (to me anyway) is unanimous GOP vote for HR 8404 by Utah delegation, plus the GOP congressman from southern Idaho which is also notable for LARGE majority of members of church formerly called Mormon.
Also note that in WA State the yea Republican vote, cast by Dan Newhouse, who also voted to impeach Trump and is running for reelection, in a very conservative district. The other GOPer who voted for impeachment, Jaime Herrera Beutler, who is also running for reelection, voted nay, but she is an evangelical Christian.
Both DN and JHB are on the ballot in ongoing August 2 WA State Primary. Which is Top Two deal, like (sorta) the Tory leadership MP vote, except just one FPTP round.
But this makes me wonder if the Conservatives have made another mistake in letting the members vote. Not because the members might choose the wrong one, but because it means another two months of Rishi and Liz attacking each other's economic policy.
If I was a Russian stationed in the city I would be tugging my collar nervously.
You don't stop him by letting him steal part of Ukraine.
Particularly as Putin has now been strongly reminded he can't reunite Russia without the Baltics and that his allies in Belarusia and Kazakhstan can't be relied on to be his puppets.
Hannah Jane Parkinson
@ladyhaja
Obvs the Liz Truss cheese speech is now more iconic than Churchill’s beaches – but I still don’t think the *level* of cringe/nonsense/hilarity is appreciated enough. Most clips don’t even get to the Isaac Newton apples bit. I will simply never get over this performance.
https://twitter.com/ladyhaja/status/1549794712969744387
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62231936
You can't negotiate with somebody whose aim is total subjugation.
It is currently going backwards and will probably lose Kherson in a couple of months
He won’t beat her.
The fundamentals are - Liz makes the Tories feel good about Brexit and low taxes and global Britain and standing up to Putin.
Rishi is a used car salesman who is seen as a high tax chancellor who knifed Everyone’s Favourite PM Boris in the front so he could claim the crown.
Dominic Cummings
@Dominic2306
·
3h
Totally on-brand for ERG to back a truly useless Remainer who did nothing in govt except gabble with hacks cos she’s reassuringly mad behind the eyes.
🤡
🤡
🤡🤡🤡
"She would be a disaster."
Which means obvs Truss bolted on for PM.