Sunak a net 10% behind Starmer in latest approval ratings – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
You certainly don't.BartholomewRoberts said:Law makers can't be law breakers ...
Sunak broke the law as Chancellor and got fined.
Sunak broke the law as Prime Minister and got fined.
People don't change.0 -
Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.6 -
Is this Guido acting as a Conservative black channel, or Guido acting off his own bat? I'm inclined to think the latter, because going through video clips from before the millennium (?) seems a bit sad.stodge said:Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.0 -
Yes. And then again recently with the implosion of a PM patently unfit for office. But this cake really does look baked now.Andy_JS said:
True but two years is an eternity in today's political climate. Think how much the scene changed between 2014 and 2016 with the two referendums.Northern_Al said:On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.1 -
He is more of a Borisite than a Sunakite by inclination.Stuartinromford said:
Is this Guido acting as a Conservative black channel, or Guido acting off his own bat? I'm inclined to think the latter, because going through video clips from before the millennium (?) seems a bit sad.stodge said:Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.0 -
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.1 -
Counting the days till this cesspit of a government is shown the door !
2 -
Indeed - there isn't much that looks probable to change things round, so basically they are entirely reliant on something unforeseen happening that helps them out.kinabalu said:
Yes. And then again recently with the implosion of a PM patently unfit for office. But this cake really does look baked now.Andy_JS said:
True but two years is an eternity in today's political climate. Think how much the scene changed between 2014 and 2016 with the two referendums.Northern_Al said:On the polling, the New Year hasn't brought any comfort at all for the Tories.
Some folk were, and quite rightly too, pointing out that Labour's performance in local elections wasn't matching their opinion poll leads. However, it looks to me as if that is changing, with better Labour results in recent weeks. Not sure if it's been mentioned, but Labour did very well in two Staffordshire council elections yesterday, as well as filling their boots in Stevenage.
That't not impossible, but it is out of their hands and a lot to pin hopes on.1 -
Ongoing demonstration in Berlin near the Bundestag demanding to FREE THE LEOPARDS, NOW
https://mobile.twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/16164959695787663360 -
Point of order.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
They had a horrific interregnum with a non-lawbreaker.
So went back to what they knew.3 -
Much wiser than one outside Berlin zoo.Nigelb said:Ongoing demonstration in Berlin near the Bundestag demanding to FREE THE LEOPARDS, NOW
https://mobile.twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/16164959695787663362 -
It is a shame Truss went in so arrogantly without any preparation in the event people didn't greet her plans with effusive praise, she might have been interesting.dixiedean said:
Point of order.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
They had a horrific interregnum with a non-lawbreaker.
So went back to what they knew.1 -
This is the same guy who thought reappointing someone who resigned 2 days earlier counted as that person taking responsibility for what they had done of course.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
Still an inexplicable decision to me - no one else in the Tories wants to stop the boats as much as Braverman? Unlikely.1 -
There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?0 -
I believe I stated that as a possibility yesterday.FeersumEnjineeya said:
I do wonder if the reluctance by both Germany and the US to send MBTs to Ukraine is the fear that they may end up becoming just as much sitting ducks as the Russian tanks were back in March last year, despite their superior armour. Perhaps modern warfare between relatively technologically advanced armies simply doesn't have a place for tanks.JosiasJessop said:
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.JosiasJessop said:
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.JosiasJessop said:
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.Sandpit said:
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?Malmesbury said:
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
AIUI US doctrine is for massive combined arms, as we saw in GW1 and GW2. Ukraine could theoretically do all of that, with training, but they lack one massive component: air cover. The US likes to have air superiority days before the tank drivers think of warming their engines. Now, the Russian air force is not exactly dominating the air space over the front lines, but it's still a very 'hot' environment for any tank to go into. An added complication is the new threat from UAVs, which did not particularly exist in GW1 or GW2.
But on the other hand: tanks, APCs, AFVs and all other vehicles in a military are there to do a job, and that risks losing them. If you don't want to risk losing them, you'll never fight, and that means its pointless having them in the first place.0 -
About 650?nico679 said:Counting the days till this cesspit of a government is shown the door !
They might as well hang on on the off chance that something turns up.0 -
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.3 -
That was her though. Nothing there bar a totally unjustified self confidence.kle4 said:
It is a shame Truss went in so arrogantly without any preparation in the event people didn't greet her plans with effusive praise, she might have been interesting.dixiedean said:
Point of order.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
They had a horrific interregnum with a non-lawbreaker.
So went back to what they knew.0 -
It could be a maximum of 735 days away.Stuartinromford said:
About 650?nico679 said:Counting the days till this cesspit of a government is shown the door !
They might as well hang on on the off chance that something turns up.0 -
Sometimes he's right
Seatbeltgate isn't going to damage Rishi on its own. But it underlines the point I've been making - he keeps making too many avoidable mistakes. And he doesn't have enough political capital to waste on this sort of stuff.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1616515562816868354?cxt=HHwWhMC4-d6Vgu8sAAAA0 -
Simply someone with <2 FPNs...presumably.kle4 said:
And no doubt in their eyes should be replaced by someone without personal morals, because that's such an improvement.Stuartinromford said:Presumably Nadine D and a bright young thing called Alex de Pfefel. Not sure what his constituency is, but he could do with brushing his hair.
Ooof - that didn’t take long…
Two Conservatives backbenchers telling me “on principle” RishiSunak should resign as this is his second fixed penalty notice.
https://twitter.com/PGMcNamara/status/16165139559454515311 -
I think, as with some, the idea of a Labour (or indeed any non-Conservative) Government is so horrendous to them personally and perhaps professionally as to legitimise almost anything to prevent it.Stuartinromford said:
Is this Guido acting as a Conservative black channel, or Guido acting off his own bat? I'm inclined to think the latter, because going through video clips from before the millennium (?) seems a bit sad.stodge said:Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.
Those opinion formers and influencers who have been "close" to or "had the ear of" Ministers and those close to power for the last decade or more would find themselves in the wilderness in the event of a change of Government.
I'm sure the "opposition" to the new Government will begin right away - trouble is, no one will listen or be interested.2 -
The Corn Laws?dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?0 -
Thinking back to the mid 90's, there came a point where even good anti-Labour talking points weren't really heard, because everyone knew what was going to happen at the coming election.stodge said:
I think, as with some, the idea of a Labour (or indeed any non-Conservative) Government is so horrendous to them personally and perhaps professionally as to legitimise almost anything to prevent it.Stuartinromford said:
Is this Guido acting as a Conservative black channel, or Guido acting off his own bat? I'm inclined to think the latter, because going through video clips from before the millennium (?) seems a bit sad.stodge said:Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.
Those opinion formers and influencers who have been "close" to or "had the ear of" Ministers and those close to power for the last decade or more would find themselves in the wilderness in the event of a change of Government.
I'm sure the "opposition" to the new Government will begin right away - trouble is, no one will listen or be interested.
For some in the Conservative-media nexus, the irrelevance has already begun, and it will get worse and probably drive them potty.2 -
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.
I agree though Sunak is more popular than the Tory party at present with most voters, albeit leaking on the right to RefUK0 -
That might happen next depending on how they react to defeat.HYUFD said:
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.
0 -
It would take a Braver-man!kle4 said:
That might happen next depending on how they react to defeat.HYUFD said:
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.0 -
It's a long while since I have been in a London cab. That one looks like an old FX5. I can't recall using a seat belt in a London cab- ever. And I don't recall anyone with whom I have shared a London cab ever wearing a rear seat belt.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems they already haveMexicanpete said:
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.kinabalu said:
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.Peter_the_Punter said:
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.kinabalu said:
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?Benpointer said:
According to the RAC it is:turbotubbs said:
Seatbelt awareness course ought to be a thing. Genuinely.TimS said:
Shame it’s not something that would qualify him for a speed awareness course. That would be hilarious.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunak has more FPNs than poll leads.
What a loser.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/driving-law/uk-drivers-could-be-hit-with-penalty-points-for-not-wearing-seatbelts/
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1616506967379349536?t=IDuaqPgQyDUObPhoC2HsXg&s=19
Still it's a London cab so it must be in the Met area. If only Cressida were still Chief Constable.0 -
Maybe not next time, after 2 defeats very possiblykle4 said:
That might happen next depending on how they react to defeat.HYUFD said:
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.0 -
The seatbelt thing is largely an irrelevance, save that Rishi has failed to front foot it and has clumsily waited to be fined instead.
Zahawi’s tax bill is far more serious and Rishi, by pretending that the story had been fully disclosed, has tied himself to another attempt to deceive the public.
We should also remember that Rishi himself thought it was nobody’s business that his own wife was a supposed non-dom.
Rishi is not up to it, never was up to it, and the Tories deserve to be reduced to minor party status.2 -
He may be rather an ineffective Prime Minister but he really was "ambushed by a cake", and this FPN is a storm in a teacup.BartholomewRoberts said:Law makers can't be law breakers ...
Sunak broke the law as Chancellor and got fined.
Sunak broke the law as Prime Minister and got fined.
People don't change.
These FPNs are certainly not enough for him to be replaced by a narcissistic cad, and an absolute bounder.0 -
After the last two, I’m still enjoying the marked improvement of having a PM who is merely not very good.Gardenwalker said:The seatbelt thing is largely an irrelevance, save that Rishi has failed to front foot it and has clumsily waited to be fined instead.
Zahawi’s tax bill is far more serious and Rishi, by pretending that the story had been fully disclosed, has tied himself to another attempt to deceive the public.
We should also remember that Rishi himself thought it was nobody’s business that his own wife was a supposed non-dom.
Rishi is not up to it, never was up to it, and the Tories deserve to be reduced to minor party status.4 -
Might be better to do it after 1, shortcut the road to recovery.HYUFD said:
Maybe not next time, after 2 defeats very possiblykle4 said:
That might happen next depending on how they react to defeat.HYUFD said:
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.0 -
It does feel like a series of avoidable mistakes. Which isn't _ideal_ in your Prime Minister. Even if he himself is rubbish at this 'trivial' detail - he should be good enough to have picked people to notice it on his behalf.kle4 said:Sometimes he's right
Seatbeltgate isn't going to damage Rishi on its own. But it underlines the point I've been making - he keeps making too many avoidable mistakes. And he doesn't have enough political capital to waste on this sort of stuff.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1616515562816868354?cxt=HHwWhMC4-d6Vgu8sAAAA0 -
Some truth in that.ThomasNashe said:
After the last two, I’m still enjoying the marked improvement of having a PM who is merely not very good.Gardenwalker said:The seatbelt thing is largely an irrelevance, save that Rishi has failed to front foot it and has clumsily waited to be fined instead.
Zahawi’s tax bill is far more serious and Rishi, by pretending that the story had been fully disclosed, has tied himself to another attempt to deceive the public.
We should also remember that Rishi himself thought it was nobody’s business that his own wife was a supposed non-dom.
Rishi is not up to it, never was up to it, and the Tories deserve to be reduced to minor party status.
I still can’t watch clips of Johnson without a rising sense of fury at his blatant fraudulence. And Truss was a very, very dark joke.4 -
He wasn't and isn't up to the job, but CotE and FS are the places where governments look for emergency Prime Ministers.Gardenwalker said:The seatbelt thing is largely an irrelevance, save that Rishi has failed to front foot it and has clumsily waited to be fined instead.
Zahawi’s tax bill is far more serious and Rishi, by pretending that the story had been fully disclosed, has tied himself to another attempt to deceive the public.
We should also remember that Rishi himself thought it was nobody’s business that his own wife was a supposed non-dom.
Rishi is not up to it, never was up to it, and the Tories deserve to be reduced to minor party status.
What kind of PM puts unsuitable people like Sunak and Truss in those two.slots? And if it's not to shore up their own miserable position, why?0 -
Steve Barclay is my tip for next Tory leader after 1 defeat if Rishi loseskle4 said:
Might be better to do it after 1, shortcut the road to recovery.HYUFD said:
Maybe not next time, after 2 defeats very possiblykle4 said:
That might happen next depending on how they react to defeat.HYUFD said:
Until the Tory Party elect Jacob Rees Mogg as leader they have not gone down the Corbyn route!kle4 said:
They've gone the Corbynite route - the only thing that matters is how they feel about things.dixiedean said:There really does seem to be a movement to get rid of Sunak.
When exactly did the Tory Party lose touch with the outside world?
That's not to say Sunak is popular anymore, he isn't, but the obvious goal of most of those who want him gone seems to pay no regard to what that would mean or how it would look.0 -
Unique rail travel experience that ought to strongly appeal to Sunil . . . maybe . . .
German Ghost Fire Train
https://www.facebook.com/158085547585009/videos/487018356938937/?__so__=permalink0 -
At least the punchline was arrived at swiftly.Gardenwalker said:
Some truth in that.ThomasNashe said:
After the last two, I’m still enjoying the marked improvement of having a PM who is merely not very good.Gardenwalker said:The seatbelt thing is largely an irrelevance, save that Rishi has failed to front foot it and has clumsily waited to be fined instead.
Zahawi’s tax bill is far more serious and Rishi, by pretending that the story had been fully disclosed, has tied himself to another attempt to deceive the public.
We should also remember that Rishi himself thought it was nobody’s business that his own wife was a supposed non-dom.
Rishi is not up to it, never was up to it, and the Tories deserve to be reduced to minor party status.
I still can’t watch clips of Johnson without a rising sense of fury at his blatant fraudulence. And Truss was a very, very dark joke.4 -
Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.0
-
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
0 -
Perhaps him and Rishi should have a little catch-up chat. Seems like they might have stuff in common.HYUFD said:
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
2 -
Rishi should outlast him, though he should beat Truss' tenuresolarflare said:
Perhaps him and Rishi should have a little catch-up chat. Seems like they might have stuff in common.HYUFD said:
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
0 -
Seems likely, though he may have a honeymoon bounce. My brother (currently in NZ) suggests he has a grating public persona like a Matt Hancock or perhaps a Gavin Williamson.HYUFD said:
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
0 -
Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.0
-
Judging by the last two days, I'm not going to be able to hear that name without thinking Hartley HareGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
2 -
I haven't been in a London taxi for eons. The price they charge is exorbitant. I would rather walk or bus it.Mexicanpete said:
It's a long while since I have been in a London cab. That one looks like an old FX5. I can't recall using a seat belt in a London cab- ever. And I don't recall anyone with whom I have shared a London cab ever wearing a rear seat belt.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Seems they already haveMexicanpete said:
I am sure it will enthuse some hard of thinking Tory staffers to stir up another Currygate redux.kinabalu said:
It's a big nothing. Starmer will either not mention it or use it for gentle ribbing.Peter_the_Punter said:
A 'belt' awareness course? You mean there's one I haven't been on? I must apply.kinabalu said:
Is that a belt awareness course though? Or just the normal speed one?Benpointer said:
According to the RAC it is:turbotubbs said:
Seatbelt awareness course ought to be a thing. Genuinely.TimS said:
Shame it’s not something that would qualify him for a speed awareness course. That would be hilarious.TheScreamingEagles said:Sunak has more FPNs than poll leads.
What a loser.
https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/driving-law/uk-drivers-could-be-hit-with-penalty-points-for-not-wearing-seatbelts/
Currently, drivers and passengers over the age of 14 caught not wearing their seatbelts can bit given an on-the-spot penalty of £100.
However, this can be waivered (sic) if the driver takes a £52 awareness course instead of paying the fine.
Sunak's embarrassment is mildly comical but that's all it is. But never mind the FPN. One trusts the Wally in charge of the whole farago has been handed his P45.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1616506967379349536?t=IDuaqPgQyDUObPhoC2HsXg&s=19
Still it's a London cab so it must be in the Met area. If only Cressida were still Chief Constable.0 -
Good grief. That bad?Gardenwalker said:
Seems likely, though he may have a honeymoon bounce. My brother (currently in NZ) suggests he has a grating public persona like a Matt Hancock or perhaps a Gavin Williamson.HYUFD said:
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
I'm amazed he was elected leader especially unopposed. Surely some backbencher could have put themselves forward.0 -
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
0 -
There's a proper order to these things.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
You are unknown
You are respected
You are liked
You are elected
You are disliked
You are hated
You are unelected.0 -
Given the number of very hard calls he will have to make to clean up this mess, if he isn't loathed he won't be doing it right.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
0 -
Political confidence is a good example of the Matthew Effect ("For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.")Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I don't know what Starmer did in Summer 2021 to turn things round after Hartlepool. Maybe nothing, but to keep
buggering on. But the fact that he did probably marked the moment where he became a winner.1 -
One for the kids.Pro_Rata said:
Judging by the last two days, I'm not going to be able to hear that name without thinking Hartley HareGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
0 -
The keep buggering on bit was a necessary but not sufficient condition.Stuartinromford said:
Political confidence is a good example of the Matthew Effect ("For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.")Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I don't know what Starmer did in Summer 2021 to turn things round after Hartlepool. Maybe nothing, but to keep
buggering on. But the fact that he did probably marked the moment where he became a winner.
What turned it around was the Tories spectacular self-indulgence.2 -
Well, indulgence anyway.dixiedean said:
The keep buggering on bit was a necessary but not sufficient condition.Stuartinromford said:
Political confidence is a good example of the Matthew Effect ("For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.")Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I don't know what Starmer did in Summer 2021 to turn things round after Hartlepool. Maybe nothing, but to keep
buggering on. But the fact that he did probably marked the moment where he became a winner.
What turned it around was the Tories spectacular self-indulgence.0 -
Perhaps it would then be up to the Father Birthparent or Birthparent's Partner of the House to decide?dixiedean said:
Thanks.DJ41 said:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/27dixiedean said:
Won't happen, but.Benpointer said:
CON tied with SNP for Official Opposition on those figures according to Electoral Calculus (assuming new boundaries and no tactical voting).CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 50% (+2)
CON: 24% (-4)
LDM: 8% (+1)
GRN: 5% (-2)
RFM: 5% (+2)
SNP: 4% (=)
Via
@Omnisis
, 19 Jan.
Changes w/ 12 Jan.
If it did who would be LOTO, or would they share?
Penalties or somesuch? The Tories seem good at them.
Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975
"If any doubt arises as to which is or was at any material time the party in opposition to Her Majesty’s Government having the greatest numerical strength in the House of Commons, or as to who is or was at any material time the leader in that House of such a party, the question shall be decided for the purposes of this Act by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
Hopefully if they won an equal number of seats, then count up how many they came second in.
Now suppose this occurred after an election.
Their first job is to elect a Speaker.0 -
The really impressive people are the ones who somehow manage to bypass some of those steps.kle4 said:
There's a proper order to these things.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
You are unknown
You are respected
You are liked
You are elected
You are disliked
You are hated
You are unelected.0 -
No, forgiveness doesn't require any action on the part of the transgressor. It is entirely within the gift of the afflicted party, and the reason it's encouraged, and a good thing, is for the wellbeing of that party. Forgiveness is freedom from that past affliction. If it also gives comfort to the transgressor, that's a bonus.Malmesbury said:
Indeed - I have encountered this riff a couple of times. Always seems to be non-Christians using this. Like it's a magic escape from consequences.Sean_F said:
That is entirely correct.dixiedean said:
Forgiveness requires confession and repentance.Malmesbury said:
I remember an occasion where someone (completely unreligious) was trying to worm their way out of the consequences for an action that they had shown no remorse or repentence for.Andy_JS said:
It also talks about forgiveness, which a lot of people today don't seem to believe in.CorrectHorseBattery3 said:Doesn't the Bible talk about love, why does it matter who you love.
Essentially they demanded I forgive them, as if forgiveness was something they were owed.
The accused me of being unchristian.
I replied that I wasn't a Christian.
They thought this was shocking.
Otherwise it's just letting somebody be not responsible for their actions and their consequences.
I’d add a further point. Repentance requires a willingness to submit with good grace to secular punishment, if one has committed a crime.0 -
It is a great shame that she was dissuaded from her original intention to offer a fully costed mini budget. I point the finger at Kwasi personally, and we'll never know his reasons for acting in the very peculiar way that he did.kle4 said:
It is a shame Truss went in so arrogantly without any preparation in the event people didn't greet her plans with effusive praise, she might have been interesting.dixiedean said:
Point of order.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
They had a horrific interregnum with a non-lawbreaker.
So went back to what they knew.0 -
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.0 -
I guess it’s widely understood as a “hospital pass”.ydoethur said:
Good grief. That bad?Gardenwalker said:
Seems likely, though he may have a honeymoon bounce. My brother (currently in NZ) suggests he has a grating public persona like a Matt Hancock or perhaps a Gavin Williamson.HYUFD said:
For a few months before likely losing the next election to the NationalsGardenwalker said:Chris Hipkins is the only nominee and therefore will become Leader of the Labour Party and next Prime Minister of New Zealand.
I'm amazed he was elected leader especially unopposed. Surely some backbencher could have put themselves forward.0 -
I'm the same. I really don't care about the seatbelt, but it's still time for Sunak to go. Just like I really didn't care about partygate, but it was still time for Boris to go.stodge said:Must confess I can't get too excited about the Prime Minister not wearing a seatbelt.
There are many other things for which you can lay the blame or the accusation at the door of Number 10 which are of much greater import.
The Conservatives, unfortunately, instead of trying to move on, frantically dig back through every video, tweet etc to find something similar. It's a bit sad and desperate, isn't it? All it does is keep it in the news cycle.
Perhaps putting Starmer in an apparently equal situation will drive the legions of "Don't Knows" back to the Conservative fold. Colour me sceptical.
He's a gonner. They should have a transition plan in place before the local election drubbing if he insists on hanging on till then; which I suppose he should, so that the new leader has a slightly cleaner slate.0 -
"‘Beyond painful’: Estranged father of runaway aristocrat pleads with daughter to turn herself in".
?? That's the first time I've heard "turn yourself in" used outside of a context in which a person is wanted in connection with a crime.
What's she supposed to have done? She can run away with her baby and boyfriend (or husband) if she wants, can't she?
200 police...
What next? Army roadblocks? General curfew?
It's being reported that her grandmother's godmother was the late queen mother...
The Independent: "Investigators say the couple appear to know how to evade authorities – making the search for them harder."
FFS. Somebody's after them, for sure.0 -
But Johnson was revered until he was caught red handed partying like it was 1999 all the way through the Covid pandemic. I wonder what trick Starmer has up his sleeve to become as detested as Johnson? It's a tough act to follow.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
0 -
Your mistake is to think people will vote for Starmer because of who he is. They won't. They will vote for him and make him PM because of who he isn't. He isn't Johnson, he isn't Truss and he isn't Sunak. For many that is more than enough reason to have a guarded optimism about his election.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
1 -
Tanks are certainly still necessary, and, with the aid of UAVs and satellites to gather targeting information artillery can to a certain extent perform the role performed by air superiority in NATO doctrine.JosiasJessop said:
I believe I stated that as a possibility yesterday.FeersumEnjineeya said:
I do wonder if the reluctance by both Germany and the US to send MBTs to Ukraine is the fear that they may end up becoming just as much sitting ducks as the Russian tanks were back in March last year, despite their superior armour. Perhaps modern warfare between relatively technologically advanced armies simply doesn't have a place for tanks.JosiasJessop said:
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.JosiasJessop said:
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.JosiasJessop said:
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.Sandpit said:
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?Malmesbury said:
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
AIUI US doctrine is for massive combined arms, as we saw in GW1 and GW2. Ukraine could theoretically do all of that, with training, but they lack one massive component: air cover. The US likes to have air superiority days before the tank drivers think of warming their engines. Now, the Russian air force is not exactly dominating the air space over the front lines, but it's still a very 'hot' environment for any tank to go into. An added complication is the new threat from UAVs, which did not particularly exist in GW1 or GW2.
But on the other hand: tanks, APCs, AFVs and all other vehicles in a military are there to do a job, and that risks losing them. If you don't want to risk losing them, you'll never fight, and that means its pointless having them in the first place.
It will be very hard for Ukraine to dislodge the Russian from prepared defensive positions without more tanks, particularly as they still haven't been given the longer-range HIMARS missiles to target Russian logistics.
If you imagine what might be happening had British Challenger 2 tanks been a better option than Leopard 2 tanks for most NATO allies, one imagines that a lot more tanks would now be heading to Ukraine. This is a very tangible cost for some of the failings of British military procurement.0 -
Paterson came first, didn't he?Mexicanpete said:
But Johnson was revered until he was caught red handed partying like it was 1999 all the way through the Covid pandemic. I wonder what trick Starmer has up his sleeve to become as detested as Johnson? It's a tough act to follow.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
After that it was one thing after another. Parties, fines, Pincher, lying to cabinet, lying to parliament...3 -
Hartlepool by-election was at the beginning of May. Hancock's resignation for breaching Covid rules with a co-worker was at the end of June. Labour hung on at Batley and Spen at the beginning of July, and then, at the end of October/start of November we had the Paterson scandal, and since then providing opposition to the government has been a target-rich environment.dixiedean said:
The keep buggering on bit was a necessary but not sufficient condition.Stuartinromford said:
Political confidence is a good example of the Matthew Effect ("For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.")Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I don't know what Starmer did in Summer 2021 to turn things round after Hartlepool. Maybe nothing, but to keep
buggering on. But the fact that he did probably marked the moment where he became a winner.
What turned it around was the Tories spectacular self-indulgence.0 -
Spot the difference
https://twitter.com/LordRennard/status/16165397083470889190 -
Sunak’s fine.2
-
...
0 -
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.1 -
Not being interesting wasn’t her mistake, to be fair.kle4 said:
It is a shame Truss went in so arrogantly without any preparation in the event people didn't greet her plans with effusive praise, she might have been interesting.dixiedean said:
Point of order.BartholomewRoberts said:
I was a very big Boris fan until he raised NI, and even then still liked Boris but once partygate came along I said all along that law makers can not be law breakers and that he should go.dixiedean said:I wondered when the Boris "ambushed by a cake" crowd would be out demanding Sunak's head for this heinous offence.
That the Tories replaced one law breaker with another is farcical. That he's been fined again is beyond a bad joke.
They had a horrific interregnum with a non-lawbreaker.
So went back to what they knew.0 -
Well, major difference between Starmer and Biden is that Starmer has only been an MP for the same short period of time as Rishi Sunak, while Biden entered the US Senate so long ago that it was closer in time to the Presidency of Warren G Harding than the present day.TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.0 -
And arguably Starmer's inexperience showed up during his time as Brexit shadow. But he has proved to be a fast learner.LostPassword said:
Well, major difference between Starmer and Biden is that Starmer has only been an MP for the same short period of time as Rishi Sunak, while Biden entered the US Senate so long ago that it was closer in time to the Presidency of Warren G Harding than the present day.TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.0 -
Yes true, but he’s been a public figure for much longer. At least as high profile as a back bench MP. Longer in the spotlight than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Similar in length of experience to Emmanuel Macron.LostPassword said:
Well, major difference between Starmer and Biden is that Starmer has only been an MP for the same short period of time as Rishi Sunak, while Biden entered the US Senate so long ago that it was closer in time to the Presidency of Warren G Harding than the present day.TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.
Few people in international politics have anything like the length of service of Biden. He’s an exception.0 -
But in today's Conservative Party they are but mere trifles compared to a seat belt infringement.ydoethur said:
Paterson came first, didn't he?Mexicanpete said:
But Johnson was revered until he was caught red handed partying like it was 1999 all the way through the Covid pandemic. I wonder what trick Starmer has up his sleeve to become as detested as Johnson? It's a tough act to follow.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
After that it was one thing after another. Parties, fines, Pincher, lying to cabinet, lying to parliament...0 -
Not many top politicians get more effective with time. Hague, Clarke, Balls, Mandelson, Rayner, arguably Brexit Spartan Steve Baker,Stuartinromford said:
And arguably Starmer's inexperience showed up during his time as Brexit shadow. But he has proved to be a fast learner.LostPassword said:
Well, major difference between Starmer and Biden is that Starmer has only been an MP for the same short period of time as Rishi Sunak, while Biden entered the US Senate so long ago that it was closer in time to the Presidency of Warren G Harding than the present day.TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.
Howard, Kennedy. It’s a rare and useful talent.1 -
Peppa Pig!!ydoethur said:
Paterson came first, didn't he?Mexicanpete said:
But Johnson was revered until he was caught red handed partying like it was 1999 all the way through the Covid pandemic. I wonder what trick Starmer has up his sleeve to become as detested as Johnson? It's a tough act to follow.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
0 -
So does he have sensitive national security material stored in his garage next to the Allegro?TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.0 -
With the hilarious irony of British tabloid politics, the very immateriality of the seatbelt thing helps to shed a stark light on the more nefarious doings of other Tories like Nadim. They’re definitely in the doom loop. Just call an election now and get it over with.Mexicanpete said:
But in today's Conservative Party they are but mere trifles compared to a seat belt infringement.ydoethur said:
Paterson came first, didn't he?Mexicanpete said:
But Johnson was revered until he was caught red handed partying like it was 1999 all the way through the Covid pandemic. I wonder what trick Starmer has up his sleeve to become as detested as Johnson? It's a tough act to follow.squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
After that it was one thing after another. Parties, fines, Pincher, lying to cabinet, lying to parliament...0 -
Thing is our sensitive national security data is so much less important than anything the Americans have. We’re the assistant (to the) general manager.Mexicanpete said:
So does he have sensitive national security material stored in his garage next to the Allegro?TimS said:
He’s had a slow, measured but relentless rise. Almost always he surprises on the upside. Very much the Joe Biden of British politics.Gardenwalker said:
What love-in?squareroot2 said:
Whilst you are having your love in with Starmer, remember, come the election, if Starmer is PM, it won't take long for him.to be loathed, possibly as much as Boris was..Gardenwalker said:Starmer is confident, lucid and impressive on the latest episode of “the News Agents”.
I’ve been quite skeptical of Keir, who is not a natural media performer.
I do try to give credit where it’s due, though.0 -
Watching a place in the sun. Needs an overhaul. Too much costas, Balearics and Dordogne. Not enough quirky stuff or big budgets. I want to see someone shopping for castles in Transylvania, not 2nd floor apartments in Nerja.0
-
Germany isn't blocking other countries from sending them are they?LostPassword said:
Tanks are certainly still necessary, and, with the aid of UAVs and satellites to gather targeting information artillery can to a certain extent perform the role performed by air superiority in NATO doctrine.JosiasJessop said:
I believe I stated that as a possibility yesterday.FeersumEnjineeya said:
I do wonder if the reluctance by both Germany and the US to send MBTs to Ukraine is the fear that they may end up becoming just as much sitting ducks as the Russian tanks were back in March last year, despite their superior armour. Perhaps modern warfare between relatively technologically advanced armies simply doesn't have a place for tanks.JosiasJessop said:
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.JosiasJessop said:
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.JosiasJessop said:
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.Sandpit said:
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?Malmesbury said:
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
AIUI US doctrine is for massive combined arms, as we saw in GW1 and GW2. Ukraine could theoretically do all of that, with training, but they lack one massive component: air cover. The US likes to have air superiority days before the tank drivers think of warming their engines. Now, the Russian air force is not exactly dominating the air space over the front lines, but it's still a very 'hot' environment for any tank to go into. An added complication is the new threat from UAVs, which did not particularly exist in GW1 or GW2.
But on the other hand: tanks, APCs, AFVs and all other vehicles in a military are there to do a job, and that risks losing them. If you don't want to risk losing them, you'll never fight, and that means its pointless having them in the first place.
It will be very hard for Ukraine to dislodge the Russian from prepared defensive positions without more tanks, particularly as they still haven't been given the longer-range HIMARS missiles to target Russian logistics.
If you imagine what might be happening had British Challenger 2 tanks been a better option than Leopard 2 tanks for most NATO allies, one imagines that a lot more tanks would now be heading to Ukraine. This is a very tangible cost for some of the failings of British military procurement.
According to Peskov the tanks aren't very important anyway so we shouldn't be concerned with escalation - which ought to be a bigger concern for the Kremlin anyway.0 -
Yes they’re blocking other countries.FrankBooth said:
Germany isn't blocking other countries from sending them are they?LostPassword said:
Tanks are certainly still necessary, and, with the aid of UAVs and satellites to gather targeting information artillery can to a certain extent perform the role performed by air superiority in NATO doctrine.JosiasJessop said:
I believe I stated that as a possibility yesterday.FeersumEnjineeya said:
I do wonder if the reluctance by both Germany and the US to send MBTs to Ukraine is the fear that they may end up becoming just as much sitting ducks as the Russian tanks were back in March last year, despite their superior armour. Perhaps modern warfare between relatively technologically advanced armies simply doesn't have a place for tanks.JosiasJessop said:
I fear that's a logical fallacy, as there are plenty of other reasons they may be reluctant to send MBTs, from the fact they're not the best fit for Ukraine's requirements, through cost, to a need for it to be seen as a part of a coalition of nations.FeersumEnjineeya said:
If the intention of NATO really were to drive the Russians out of Ukraine as quickly as possible, the US would be sending MBTs. The fact that they are not tells you that that is not the intention.JosiasJessop said:
The 'just enough' argument is imv fallacious, because it's impossible to judge what level that is. It's how you end up getting an unpleasant surprise when one side suddenly breaks through.FeersumEnjineeya said:
It seems pretty obvious to me that NATO is indeed following the policy of providing just enough help to Ukraine to keep Russia bogged down in a war of attrition but not enough to drive Russia back and possibly spark nuclear retaliation. This is exactly what I predicted would happen and what makes the most sense.JosiasJessop said:
I fear Germany thinks it can save money on having to maintain a functioning army by appeasing its enemies.Sandpit said:
Surely the one thing everyone in Europe now understands, is the need to maintain a functioning army?Malmesbury said:
It does make you wonder about the future of the German and Swiss arms industries. The Leopard 2s are coming up for replacement in many countries. After the big Polish sale, the Americans and South Koreans are looking good for that....LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
What good reasons are there for them doing this? The "US must send Abrams!" is bullshit, from both a moral and a practical viewpoint, as the UK is sending MBTs (and not ignoring all the other ex-Soviet tanks sent over last year).
Yes, I know Germany's doing a lot. But this is manna from Heaven for the Kremlin; both in terms of actual hardware and messaging. As much as anything else, it shows their opposition can be easily split.
Your notion that Germany is going to piss everyone off just to save a few pennies on its military spending makes no sense whatsoever.
Germany's words and actions make little sense to me. It really is playing into Moscow's hands, especially on the PR front as it screams of divisions within the allies.
As one example: perhaps it is believed that the Leo2's are the best MBT for Ukraine to get, and the Bradley the best APC/AFV.
The big question is why no-one has yet sent modern western airplanes or helicopters over (the Seakings we have sent are useful, but not that modern). Russian media got very excited earlier this week when they claimed that the UK was going to send Apaches over.
The lack of modern planes, rather than MBTs, is a better argument to support your point. But again, there are potentially better alternative explanations for that, like cost, training, spares and not wanting Russia to capture the tech.
Personally, I just don't think the Ukrainians have the combat pilots available to make a large number of gifted planes viable. Although I hope I'm wrong, and there are loads of Ukrainian pilots in the US desert.
AIUI US doctrine is for massive combined arms, as we saw in GW1 and GW2. Ukraine could theoretically do all of that, with training, but they lack one massive component: air cover. The US likes to have air superiority days before the tank drivers think of warming their engines. Now, the Russian air force is not exactly dominating the air space over the front lines, but it's still a very 'hot' environment for any tank to go into. An added complication is the new threat from UAVs, which did not particularly exist in GW1 or GW2.
But on the other hand: tanks, APCs, AFVs and all other vehicles in a military are there to do a job, and that risks losing them. If you don't want to risk losing them, you'll never fight, and that means its pointless having them in the first place.
It will be very hard for Ukraine to dislodge the Russian from prepared defensive positions without more tanks, particularly as they still haven't been given the longer-range HIMARS missiles to target Russian logistics.
If you imagine what might be happening had British Challenger 2 tanks been a better option than Leopard 2 tanks for most NATO allies, one imagines that a lot more tanks would now be heading to Ukraine. This is a very tangible cost for some of the failings of British military procurement.
According to Peskov the tanks aren't very important anyway so we shouldn't be concerned with escalation - which ought to be a bigger concern for the Kremlin anyway.1 -
The numbers don't work. The army has 227 CR2 but needs 148 for CR3 conversion (in toryland armour regiments are being cut from 3 to 2). So that's, in theory, 79 but 14 already donated leaves a maxium of 65 - most which will be in maintenance, training units or attrition reserves.LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
But... the army has to generate a force of 168 to equip the three tank regiments until Ajax is ready (when?) and King's Royal Hussars can get out of the MBT game. The army aren't clever enough to work how to buy an armoured vehicle but they are just clever enough to realise that if they give up an armour regiment now to free up tanks for Ukraine they will NEVER get it back despite any assurances to the contrary. So they will fight it bitterly with every weapon at their disposal up to and including the doomsday device of leaks to the Telegraph.0 -
They're a bit late to leak to the Telegraph to prevent donation of their tanks. The associate Editor for Defence at the Telegraph has been pushing the idea of donating all of Britain's Challenger tanks for a week or two on the Telegraph Ukraine podcast. They won't find a sympathetic ear there. They might have to go to the Independent instead. LOLDura_Ace said:
The numbers don't work. The army has 227 CR2 but needs 148 for CR3 conversion (in toryland armour regiments are being cut from 3 to 2). So that's, in theory, 79 but 14 already donated leaves a maxium of 65 - most which will be in maintenance, training units or attrition reserves.LostPassword said:Well, looks like I was wrong about the tanks, which is disappointing.
I think the UK have to keep hold of a couple of dozen Challengers to fulfil our commitments in Estonia and Poland, but otherwise I hope we'll give all of the rest to Ukraine as soon as possible. Not much point in only giving them a dozen on our own. Maybe we can get the Americans, or someone to backfill for us in Estonia and Poland and just send them all.
But... the army has to generate a force of 168 to equip the three tank regiments until Ajax is ready (when?) and King's Royal Hussars can get out of the MBT game. The army aren't clever enough to work how to buy an armoured vehicle but they are just clever enough to realise that if they give up an armour regiment now to free up tanks for Ukraine they will NEVER get it back despite any assurances to the contrary. So they will fight it bitterly with every weapon at their disposal up to and including the doomsday device of leaks to the Telegraph.0
