The New Statesman @NewStatesman EXCLUSIVE: In a leaked video, Rishi Sunak boasted to Conservative Party members that he was prepared to take public money out of “deprived urban areas” to help wealthy towns.
Oh how I remember the howls about "Liz Truss' dementia tax moment" being breathlessly spouted here under a week ago. The conservatives are lucky Sunak is heading to defeat.
Not sure how damning that is. No town is so wealthy that it is self sustaining on private money. If it deserves some money, then it is conceptually possible it is getting less than it deserves relative to somewhere else.
Not a smoking gun.
Disagree, this is like Clinton's deplorables, Romney's 47% or May's dementia tax. It won't matter as he's going to lose to Truss not Starmer mind.
Let's see if it gets traction outside the Staggers
It's time to unite. 21 current and former colleagues who have sat around the Cabinet table have come together to back Liz. She will unite our Party, beat Keir Starmer, and is trusted to deliver for Britain 👇 https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1555468229392437249/photo/1
✅ Jake Berry ✅ Suella Braverman ✅ James Cleverly ✅ Simon Clarke ✅ Therese Coffey ✅ Michelle Donelan ✅ Nadine Dorries ✅ David Frost ✅ Sajid Javid ✅ David Jones ✅ Kwasi Kwarteng ✅ Brandon Lewis ✅ Penny Mordaunt ✅ David Mundell ✅ John Redwood ✅ Jacob Rees-Mogg ✅ Iain Duncan Smith ✅ Anne-Marie Trevelyan ✅ Ben Wallace ✅ John Whittingdale ✅ Nadhim Zahawi
The deluded, the desperate, the dismal and the demented...
How many are holding knives?
Given that video of Rishi below - the Tory party has little choice but to choice from 2 people both of whom will have serious problems retaining their Redwall / northern seats.
Sunak has one of the safest seats in the country.
Decent prospects for being elected leader of the 100 seat Tory rump after the next general election...
It's time to unite. 21 current and former colleagues who have sat around the Cabinet table have come together to back Liz. She will unite our Party, beat Keir Starmer, and is trusted to deliver for Britain 👇 https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1555468229392437249/photo/1
✅ Jake Berry ✅ Suella Braverman ✅ James Cleverly ✅ Simon Clarke ✅ Therese Coffey ✅ Michelle Donelan ✅ Nadine Dorries ✅ David Frost ✅ Sajid Javid ✅ David Jones ✅ Kwasi Kwarteng ✅ Brandon Lewis ✅ Penny Mordaunt ✅ David Mundell ✅ John Redwood ✅ Jacob Rees-Mogg ✅ Iain Duncan Smith ✅ Anne-Marie Trevelyan ✅ Ben Wallace ✅ John Whittingdale ✅ Nadhim Zahawi
The deluded, the desperate, the dismal and the demented...
How many are holding knives?
Given that video of Rishi below - the Tory party has little choice but to choice from 2 people both of whom will have serious problems retaining their Redwall / northern seats.
I do find peoples reaction to the Amnesty report rather depressing.
I mean, I expected Twitterers to be, well, twats about it, but surely the cooler heads of PB can see that Ukrainians ain’t whiter than white?
Apparently not.
War makes people stupid.
Truly dim. Did you wake up and think Hey, I'll cement my position as a free thinking contrarian this a.m?
Ukraine's Azov Regiment is balls out neo Nazi and probably at least as nasty as the Wagner guys, if you want some balance. But Amnesty's new rule of warfare, that an attacking army automatically takes a city because putting troops in to defend it is a war crime, is so startlingly novel that I would hope even you would notice.
"Balls out Neo-Nazi"? Heavily overegged, I think.
Sometime we will find the dividing line between what is true, and what is Russian Government talking points, or online campaigns by their propagandists / useful idiots.
If this London weather forecast verifies we are looking at an unprecedented drought. Not a hint of rain for another ten days, and everything is already parched
See also the Met Office Long Range Forecast:
UK long range weather forecast Tuesday 9 Aug - Thursday 18 Aug Most places are likely to see a fair amount of settled weather throughout this period. Cloudy at first in the far north and northwest, with some outbreaks of light rain possible. Mostly dry elsewhere with long sunny spells, especially across the south. Generally warm, and locally very warm or even hot in central and southern parts. Winds light to moderate for most, but fresh to strong in the far northwest, and becoming breezy near south and southeastern coasts. Further into the period there is still the chance of some periods of organised rain in the north, but generally the dry weather is likely to persist across the country. Temperatures remaining above average widely, with further spells of very warm weather possible. Updated: 15:00 (UTC+1) on Thu 4 Aug 2022
Friday 19 Aug - Friday 2 Sep Occasional bouts of more unsettled weather are likely for this period. These will bring outbreaks of rain and also increase the likelihood of thunderstorms, especially in the south and west. Temperatures near normal to warm, but very warm and humid at times in the south. Updated: 16:00 (UTC+1) on Thu 4 Aug 2022
Add 'drought' to the list of issues voters will be blaming PM Truss for in September. ;-)
You’re on fairly safe ground when you’re predicting “occasional bouts of more unsettled weather” somewhere in the UK - in three weeks time
Is there any way such a forecast could be proven wrong?
Also there might be outbreaks of rain and possibly storms, perhaps in the south and west. And at times there will be clouds, and, at other times, fewer clouds. Air will prevail
That's fair; the 3-4 week section of the Met Office LRF tends to be rather cagey. I didn't read that section as 'drought over' though - we'd need several weeks of rain for that. (I was actually posting this to support your concern about drought.)
Still, at least we won't be moaning about a 'wash-out summer' this year, eh?
The Met Office should publish its LRF in quatrains. Like Nostradamus. With the same element of gnomic vagueness as to whether they were right or not.
Truss is an evolution ofJohnson. He believed in nothing but himself, Truss believes passionately in anything and everything that will advance her career.
I do find peoples reaction to the Amnesty report rather depressing.
I mean, I expected Twitterers to be, well, twats about it, but surely the cooler heads of PB can see that Ukrainians ain’t whiter than white?
Apparently not.
War makes people stupid.
Truly dim. Did you wake up and think Hey, I'll cement my position as a free thinking contrarian this a.m?
Ukraine's Azov Regiment is balls out neo Nazi and probably at least as nasty as the Wagner guys, if you want some balance. But Amnesty's new rule of warfare, that an attacking army automatically takes a city because putting troops in to defend it is a war crime, is so startlingly novel that I would hope even you would notice.
"Balls out Neo-Nazi"? Heavily overegged, I think.
Sometime we will find the dividing line between what is true, and what is Russian Government talking points, or online campaigns by their propagandists / useful idiots.
This is also relevant to the will she / won't she thing. We know Truss wants an emergency budget;
Playbook @politico scoop that Truss Budget could take place on Wed 21 Sept. Means splitting statement from most of 4 day debate and votes which will fall other side of recess. Permissible but unusual. Gives OBR longer BUT means Budget is “live” as parli issue for 4 weeks
I do find peoples reaction to the Amnesty report rather depressing.
I mean, I expected Twitterers to be, well, twats about it, but surely the cooler heads of PB can see that Ukrainians ain’t whiter than white?
Apparently not.
War makes people stupid.
Truly dim. Did you wake up and think Hey, I'll cement my position as a free thinking contrarian this a.m?
Ukraine's Azov Regiment is balls out neo Nazi and probably at least as nasty as the Wagner guys, if you want some balance. But Amnesty's new rule of warfare, that an attacking army automatically takes a city because putting troops in to defend it is a war crime, is so startlingly novel that I would hope even you would notice.
"Balls out Neo-Nazi"? Heavily overegged, I think.
Sometime we will find the dividing line between what is true, and what is Russian Government talking points, or online campaigns by their propagandists / useful idiots.
They were a proscribed US terrorist group ffs. Their rehabilitation into frightfully decent chaps really is laughable.
That's a bit like saying that Ukraine was a corrupt oligarchy, and calling them a democracy is laughable.
The current status of Azov is disputed. There have been reforms; how significant they are is for now unknowable. Only you are using "frightfully decent chaps".
What is known is that Russia recently murdered scores they were holding as POWs.
It's time to unite. 21 current and former colleagues who have sat around the Cabinet table have come together to back Liz. She will unite our Party, beat Keir Starmer, and is trusted to deliver for Britain 👇 https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1555468229392437249/photo/1
✅ Jake Berry ✅ Suella Braverman ✅ James Cleverly ✅ Simon Clarke ✅ Therese Coffey ✅ Michelle Donelan ✅ Nadine Dorries ✅ David Frost ✅ Sajid Javid ✅ David Jones ✅ Kwasi Kwarteng ✅ Brandon Lewis ✅ Penny Mordaunt ✅ David Mundell ✅ John Redwood ✅ Jacob Rees-Mogg ✅ Iain Duncan Smith ✅ Anne-Marie Trevelyan ✅ Ben Wallace ✅ John Whittingdale ✅ Nadhim Zahawi
The deluded, the desperate, the dismal and the demented...
How many are holding knives?
Given that video of Rishi below - the Tory party has little choice but to choice from 2 people both of whom will have serious problems retaining their Redwall / northern seats.
Sunak has one of the safest seats in the country.
Decent prospects for being elected leader of the 100 seat Tory rump after the next general election...
Third biggest party behind Starmers' Labour on 180 seats and Boris' Lets all have a Party Party which won the election on a platform of connecting each major city in the country with both bridges and tunnels, one mistress per year available for all, and all our taxes to be paid for by the French.
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
This is also relevant to the will she / won't she thing. We know Truss wants an emergency budget;
Playbook @politico scoop that Truss Budget could take place on Wed 21 Sept. Means splitting statement from most of 4 day debate and votes which will fall other side of recess. Permissible but unusual. Gives OBR longer BUT means Budget is “live” as parli issue for 4 weeks
That pushes an early election back to late November, I think. Which is brave without the Parliamentary constipation of 2019.
Just when the recession kicks in. A great backdrop to an election, not.
Not happening.
Interesting everyone is assuming this BoE forecast is correct (unlike all its predecessors). Amusingly they've revised their unemployment forecasts up despite the latest actuals being better than their previous guess.
As it stands the BoE forecast is a massively outlyer prediction from a body with a very weak track record (and a depressingly strong motive to distract from its own failings).
Ukraine are entitled to base military installations wherever they think doing so will be the most militarily effective and easily defensible. If there are civilians in the same place then they have a responsibility to move them out of harms way as much as possible.
That is very different to implications that military installations are placed where they are - not because that is the best place for them - but because of the propaganda value in them being subsequently targeted. And Ukraine have far far more leeway to push the boundaries on all of this than Russia do.
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
Awfully careless of them to level entire cities, then.
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
'Limit the damage'
Grozny? Aleppo? I don't think limiting the damage was much of a concern of their's.
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
Awfully careless of them to level entire cities, then.
Very much so, but I don't think regime-supporting Syrians would be joining up to fight for Russia in Ukraine (which by the way I do not condone), if they felt that Russia had been targetting civilian infrastructure deliberately and unecessarily. That their way of gaining ground is brutal and destructive, I don't think anyone disputes.
This is also relevant to the will she / won't she thing. We know Truss wants an emergency budget;
Playbook @politico scoop that Truss Budget could take place on Wed 21 Sept. Means splitting statement from most of 4 day debate and votes which will fall other side of recess. Permissible but unusual. Gives OBR longer BUT means Budget is “live” as parli issue for 4 weeks
That pushes an early election back to late November, I think. Which is brave without the Parliamentary constipation of 2019.
Just when the recession kicks in. A great backdrop to an election, not.
Not happening.
With a nearly 80 seat majority she really should be looking at some rigerous voter suppression tactics in place for a late GE.
She doesn't want to drop the ball as any incoming government is going to be looking at ditching FPTP, which will be a major disadvantage going forward for the Conservatives.
Interesting to share the question but not share the answer. She actually answered that question really well I thought, if you are interested in actually listening and not going for cheap Burley-style gotchas.
This is also relevant to the will she / won't she thing. We know Truss wants an emergency budget;
Playbook @politico scoop that Truss Budget could take place on Wed 21 Sept. Means splitting statement from most of 4 day debate and votes which will fall other side of recess. Permissible but unusual. Gives OBR longer BUT means Budget is “live” as parli issue for 4 weeks
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
'Limit the damage'
Grozny? Aleppo? I don't think limiting the damage was much of a concern of their's.
I know nothing about Grozny. But the point about Syria is one of intention.
Or one could take the view that Russia should not bomb schools and hospitals, regardless of what weaponry is near them, because they shouldn't be there in the first place.
What are the Ukrainians meant to do? Not defend them? Just let the Russians seize these places which may have civilians in and launch massacres?
As others have said, it's unreasonable to criticise Ukraine for putting armed forces in cities - absolutely everyone does that in a war - there is no alternative. It's reasonable to say they shouldn't base them *in* (not near) hospitals, especially if there are still patients inside, because it's inevitable that if they do then it will attract counterfire. And if they do it anyway, they can't reasonably invite the media to display the bombed hospital as evidence of an atrocious attack on defenseless civilians, and then complain if the media and NGOs ask critical questions, which is what's now happening.
Exactly the same applies to reports that Russia is using a nuclear power plant as a base for troops, because they calculate that the Ukrainians wont dare to bomb it. It's recklessly irresponsible - which is what army commmanders often are in wars.
But Nick, have you seen the vast numbers of hospitals, medical practices, schools, universities and other civilian infrastructure that Russia is hitting not just in the immediate battle areas, but all over Ukraine? I very much doubt that all of these were in use by the Ukrainian military in any meaningful manner.
In which case, there is a blanket policy in Russia to denude Ukraine's civilian infrastructure.
You could try arguing against that, except it's also what Russia did in Syria and Chechnya. Target the hospitals. Target the schools.
I don't know about Chechnya, but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals. Why wouldn't you? You could avoid being hit at all, and if you do get hit, it's a humanitarian catastrophe and a propaganda victory. Your alternative theory is somewhat suspect, given that Russia was on the side of the existing Syrian regime, who were looking to recover that territory and presumably therefore limit the damage to such facilities.
"but in Syria it was a frequent technique of the insurgent forces to base themselves in Mosques, Schools and Hospitals."
What are your sources for that claim? Especially given your history of accepting Russia's propaganda hook, line and sinker?
Comments
Decent prospects for being elected leader of the 100 seat Tory rump after the next general election...
“French scientist Etienne Klein apologises after 'James Webb Telescope' image revealed as slice of chorizo”
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-05/french-scientist-apologises-for-chorizo-star-joke/101305334
Truss is an evolution ofJohnson. He believed in nothing but himself, Truss believes passionately in anything and everything that will advance her career.
Not happening.
Like a slice of chorizo on a big pizza pie
The current status of Azov is disputed. There have been reforms; how significant they are is for now unknowable.
Only you are using "frightfully decent chaps".
What is known is that Russia recently murdered scores they were holding as POWs.
As it stands the BoE forecast is a massively outlyer prediction from a body with a very weak track record (and a depressingly strong motive to distract from its own failings).
That is very different to implications that military installations are placed where they are - not because that is the best place for them - but because of the propaganda value in them being subsequently targeted. And Ukraine have far far more leeway to push the boundaries on all of this than Russia do.
Grozny? Aleppo? I don't think limiting the damage was much of a concern of their's.
She doesn't want to drop the ball as any incoming government is going to be looking at ditching FPTP, which will be a major disadvantage going forward for the Conservatives.
https://mobile.twitter.com/larry_levitt/status/1555367990408781826
It looks like Democrats are on their way to giving the government the authority to negotiate the prices of certain drugs in Medicare and enhancing ACA affordability.
This would be the biggest health reform since passage of the ACA itself over 12 years ago.
(Note it was the Republicans who banned Medicare from negotiating prices, all the way back in 2003.)
This thread has been found out and replaced.
What are your sources for that claim? Especially given your history of accepting Russia's propaganda hook, line and sinker?