Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Told me he has family in london so came here to join them. Lives near Gospel Oak (where there is a large Somalian community so it all adds up)
I thought you were on the left? Are you saying he should be deported?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Perhaps he prefers it here. More than 40% of all dutch somalis do...
Includes Giles Brandreth's daughter Aphra, who might just be able to hold Cheshire South & Eddisbury. She contested Kingston & Surbiton last time against Ed Davey.
Dear oh dear....."Gardner joined the Conservatives after first becoming disillusioned with Labour, and then with the Liberal Democrats." They never learn. This is why they must be replaced as the main right wing party
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
@Richard_Tyndall, IIUC JKR's central point is that men can never become women in any sense, regardless of genitalia. That was not the position of the Blair Government in 2004 nor the Labour MPs at the time (including Nick Palmer passim), when on 1 July 2004 the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was published. Although commonly held now to refer only to gender, the act explicitly states that the sex can be changed[1] and that the shortform birth certificate can be reissued with the sex changed[2].
So if we assume that the Labour Party and its MPs of the time were solidly left-wing (a bit of a stretch admittedly), then JKR and the left-wing have been out-of-sync for two decades.
Incidentally the GRA will be 20 years old in 9 days de facto, although it didn't come into effect until 4 April 2005.
Notes
[1] "...Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)...", see https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9?view=plain
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Told me he has family in london so came here to join them. Lives near Gospel Oak (where there is a large Somalian community so it all adds up)
I thought you were on the left? Are you saying he should be deported?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
"‘Only one British applicant out of 200’: how the UK lost its work ethic Failure to fix the nation’s skills shortage threatens to snuff out the green shoots of growth"
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
I spend approximately three hours in taxis once a week whilst getting to/from stations. I appreciate your point, but lengthy impassioned debates with people in a steel box that you are trapped in can really old really quickly.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Told me he has family in london so came here to join them. Lives near Gospel Oak (where there is a large Somalian community so it all adds up)
I thought you were on the left? Are you saying he should be deported?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
"‘Only one British applicant out of 200’: how the UK lost its work ethic Failure to fix the nation’s skills shortage threatens to snuff out the green shoots of growth"
Barcelona, a top Spanish holiday destination, announced on Friday that it will bar apartment rentals to tourists by 2028, an unexpectedly drastic move as it seeks to rein in soaring housing costs and make the city liveable for residents
Interesting that Starmer’s cars are not posh in the Ashcroft focus group. Surprising. Maybe the son of a toolmaker thing is working.
I’d have SKS down as a VW Passat or Audi A4 (or whatever the current versions are).
Isn't the new Primeministerial car going to be an Audi A8 because Jaguar cancelled the XJ? The only remaining british-built large saloons are from Bentley and RR and presumanly they're deemed too posh. Why not an SUV?
Wouldn't Sunak need a ladder to get into a bigger Range Rover?
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
Includes Giles Brandreth's daughter Aphra, who might just be able to hold Cheshire South & Eddisbury. She contested Kingston & Surbiton last time against Ed Davey.
Not exactly an inspiring bunch. More middle management than boardroom skills here. Probably a good thing if so few of them end up getting elected.
This is a cause celebre in Switzerland right now. People are totally shocked, and very angry. The Swiss tolerate a lot, but the Hindujas crimes are exceptionally nasty.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
I suspect this is just wishful thinking on your part as you could then use it to justfy your opposition to her views on Transgender issues.
There are many TERFs for whom, ideally, 'Transgender issues' would not exist - because there would be no transgender people. They deny trans people exist, and call them things like 'men in frocks' to belittle and demean. Or say transmen are just lesbians led astray.
Now, I have known, and been friends with, several trans people. I know they exist, and I have had a little insight into them - or as much as you can get from knowing a few people on a broad category. Trans people exist. In one case, he wanted to be a she from when I first met him (as he was then) at school when we were fourteen or so. He was not wanting attention (far from it); he was not suffering from a mental illness, as some claim trans people are (would they say the same about homosexuals?). He was trans - a boy in the wrong body. And as an adult, he transitioned.
So what we have are people (some (not all) TERFs) - denying a group exists, and wanting their rights removed.
Like everything, it is a balance. But some seem to want the balance loaded massively against trans people - because they don't want trans people to exist.
Just 3 months short of the 100year anniversary of the Zinoviev letter. Farage fly's in, distracts disillusioned 2019 Conservative voters, then blows his campaign sky high and can fly back for his Trump payday.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
Nah. She's discovered that on an issue of huge significance to her the people she thought were on her side, actually aren't. The pile-on that resulted in her simply stating some facts - designed to shut her up, and others who hold the same opinions - had the effect of hardening her stance. Many women see this as male entitlement in a dress and they won't "wheesht". It isn't JKR transitioning to fascism, its her expressing solidarity with other women. The "madness" is on the other side.
I remember, in the wake of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a similar realisation dawning on some folk. The people you thought would be unambiguous in their support - noisy lefties - proved to be less than reliable.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
I suspect this is just wishful thinking on your part as you could then use it to justfy your opposition to her views on Transgender issues.
There are many TERFs for whom, ideally, 'Transgender issues' would not exist - because there would be no transgender people. They deny trans people exist, and call them things like 'men in frocks' to belittle and demean. Or say transmen are just lesbians led astray.
Now, I have known, and been friends with, several trans people. I know they exist, and I have had a little insight into them - or as much as you can get from knowing a few people on a broad category. Trans people exist. In one case, he wanted to be a she from when I first met him (as he was then) at school when we were fourteen or so. He was not wanting attention (far from it); he was not suffering from a mental illness, as some claim trans people are (would they say the same about homosexuals?). He was trans - a boy in the wrong body. And as an adult, he transitioned.
So what we have are people (some (not all) TERFs) - denying a group exists, and wanting their rights removed.
Like everything, it is a balance. But some seem to want the balance loaded massively against trans people - because they don't want trans people to exist.
I don't even think it's all that much of a balance.
Try putting Jews into that and seeing how it looks.
"Many people would prefer Jews not to exist. But they do exist. Like everything else it is a balance ..."
We remember the generation who came to settle in Britain from the Caribbean, at this country’s request. Britain is at its best when it welcomes migrants. A once sea-faring nation we thrive best as an outward-facing culturally enriched country. Thank goodness for migrants.
Will they reject Farage's appalling comments? Will they fuck. It's quite incredible to witness their dissembling bullshit and inability to call out evil. Because that's what it is: pure evil.
Nearly a century ago we had all this bullshit from arseholes who tried to argue that what Hitler was doing wasn't wrong.
Rowling is one of those younger lefties who eventually end up as fascists in old age. She's nearly there. Not quite, but give it four years.
It is sad that you label anyone you disagree with as a fascist. Rowling has a perfect valid position with regard to women's rights - one that only a few years ago would have been considered solidly left wing. The fact that Labour are losing the support of people like her says everything you need to know about how extreme they have become on some of the more fanatical social issues. You like to think of gthem as a centre left party but when it comes to these sorts of debates they are far out on the extremes
When I said she's nearly there, I think you misinterpreted that as meaning her opinions are close to fascism. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that she's reaching an angle of repose that will result in an avalanche into utter madness. Think of Spiked. The cracks are there. She's on the brink of madness. It's the sort of thing you see every so often. Hippies that wake up one day wanting to exterminate Gypsies. She's mixing in the right crowds. In a few years time it'll be leather boots and barbed-wire fantasies.
Come back in 2028 and tell me I was wrong.
Nah. She's discovered that on an issue of huge significance to her the people she thought were on her side, actually aren't. The pile-on that resulted in her simply stating some facts - designed to shut her up, and others who hold the same opinions - had the effect of hardening her stance. Many women see this as male entitlement in a dress and they won't "wheesht". It isn't JKR transitioning to fascism, its her expressing solidarity with other women. The "madness" is on the other side.
I remember, in the wake of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a similar realisation dawning on some folk. The people you thought would be unambiguous in their support - noisy lefties - proved to be less than reliable.
Comparing trans people with the fatwa against Rushdie is a little odd.
We have two groups of people: women and trans people. The latter is tiny compared to the former. Who 'deserves' support? The answer, of course, is both. And that is where there needs to be a balance.
"Many women see this as male entitlement in a dress and they won't "wheesht"."
That perhaps gets to the nub of the issue. Trans is much more than just 'male entitlement in a dress'; and in fact that does what I state above in denying trans people exist. "They're not trans! They're just men in a dress!"
F1: It's ironic, but I considered backing Sainz each way for the win this weekend (at 26). His odds have fallen to 13 but I think it's less rather than more likely he'll get it. Mercedes looking good.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
You've spoken to all of them have you?
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
F1: It's ironic, but I considered backing Sainz each way for the win this weekend (at 26). His odds have fallen to 13 but I think it's less rather than more likely he'll get it. Mercedes looking good.
There’s four teams - seven drivers - who are in with a chance of a win this weekend. Sainz bet sounds good given that context.
Mr. Sandpit, if he were still 26 I'd probably agree. Hamilton at 11 to top qualifying appeals more to me right now. Cunningly, I can't get into Ladbrokes.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Farage is either addicted to being a contrarian and has lax judgement to come out with such nonsense. Or something worse…
I agree it will cost the party votes. And for the first time it gives me pause to allow Sunak the benefit of the doubt in not standing him up as a Conservative candidate. But most reform voters aren’t listening.
The next election will be one that troubles most here I think. Even now there’s no great love in the country for Starmer. And the next 5 years will likely have seen the beginnings of AI job destruction, the end of the global credit cycle (potentially with a lot of sparks) and much else that will I expect make the country ready for a change. MEGA here we come. Sigh.
Incidentally, and in the spirit of Rogerdamus de Villefranche-sur-Mer, I just took my older daughter home via Uber - after a WONDERFUL picnic in the Chilterns, then drinks with friends in Primrose Hill
The driver was a Somalian Muslim with Swedish citizenship. We had an impassioned debate (it was a long 57 minute journey) about everything from Gareth Southgate's failings to his own upbringing in war-torn Mogadishu to the likely UK election outcome to the problem of gangs in Malmo to his son's ambitions to be a journalist (I gave the best advice I could) to a really nuanced debate on Israel/Palestine
He was fiercely intelligent and put most PB-ers to shame with his knowledge of the history of Israel/Palestine and the intractable nature of the conflict. I felt quite humbled by the end, that a recent immigrant to the UK with English as his likely third language was so well informed on so many things. He was certainly not knee-jerk pro-Hamas
Really quite something, Reminded me why I love London. The driver also kept repeating this (and I don't believe he did it for effect) - how much he loved Britain and London ("and my son loves it even more")
A lot of food for thought. You can learn a lot in an hour of intense debate
And yet you tell us that Muslim immigrants don't want to integrate.
Too many don't, I fear. But this guy absolutely did, and it was deeply refreshing to hear - he was certainly not a "devout" Muslim, and he admitted that
My views are never fixed forever, and I aim to learn all the time. Do you not?
Also, how often do any of us get to talk INTENSELY and deeply about serious politics with a recent Somalian immigrant? I suggest that is quite unusual, and I am glad I took the opportunity. I also think I gave good advice to his son on getting into journalism!
And now I must abed, after a weirdly brilliant day
"with Swedish citizenship"
Why the fuck is he living here then?
There is a fairly big Somali community in Leicester and many of them are Swedish or Dutch. Similarly we have a Portuguese speaking Indian community from the Gujerati Portuguese enclaves, French Algerians and Italian Sikhs. These are all communities that migrated once and then again. It isn't a very unusual pattern, and our longstanding East Asian community often has relatives in Australia and North America. Diaspora communities are by their nature mobile and transient.
What is on show from Farage, ahead of whatever admiration for Putin is a blind hatred for Europeanism in all its forms. Blaming NATO is blaming the EU, and my enemy's enemy....
One day, sir, maybe not that soon, Moscow WILL be the eastern pole of Western European integrationism and you will have to stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
What Farage is either unwilling, or just too ignorant to admit, is that what ‘provoked’ Putin was Ukraine’s desire to join the EU.
I am one of the few figures that have been consistent & honest about the war in Russia.
Putin was wrong to invade a sovereign nation, and the EU was wrong to expand eastward.
The sooner we realise this, the closer we will be to ending the war and delivering peace.
What a twat. The arrogance of the guy thinking he gets to say what a sovereign country can or can’t do.
A country can’t unilaterally join the EU. It’s legitimate to comment on the foreign policy of its members (which included us at the time).
Don’t be absurd. It’s fuck all to do with Farage what either Ukraine or the EU want.
The point is just that it's not as simple as the right of a sovereign country to decide for itself.
Our membership was initially vetoed by France, for example. Was that an infringement of our sovergeign right to decide?
It was fine for France to veto our application because they were a member (and our membership of their club would have an impact on them). The fact that you even seem to be trying to make the comparison is absurd. What you are suggesting is that it would have been fine for the USA to oppose us being in the EU simply because they did not like it? Now why would anyone think they should have that right?
If you think it’s not legitimate to seek to influence the decisions of other countries then should foreign policy in general be seen as an anachronism and we should close the foreign office?
I notice that you have employed the normal tactic of the politician in seeking to avoid answering my question, by demanding more answers to irrelevant questions to try and cover the avoidance. Now I invite you again to answer the question as asked, are you suggesting the USA should be able to stop the U.K. rejoining the EU just because they don’t like it? It’s a simple question. As for your pointless question to suggest that invading your neighbour and murdering thousands of civilians is seeking to ‘influence’ the decisions of other countries through a legitimate foreign policy is deluded and absurd.
That wasn't your question. Your question was whether it would have been fine for them to oppose it, and the answer to that is clearly yes. Whether they could succeed in stopping it and how far they would be willing to go to do so is another matter.
Try changing the hypothetical to something where the goal strikes you obviously correct. For example, should the USA have a policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?
It was precisely the question I asked. So now you are comparing joining the EU with acquiring nuclear weapons? Wow the delusion levels seem to be reaching new heights. The apologists for Putin and his poodle Farage seem to be on some kind of parallel planet.
But I will not stoop to their level and will answer the question. It is fine to have a policy of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt to stop any country building more. But it is not fine to kill innocent civilians in pursuit of that policy. The problem with your absolutely absurd comparison is that the EU has no army, no military aspirations and no history of any military activity. To use countries joining a peaceful trade arrangement as a justification for war is the act of a political appeaser. So the question remains why should the countries of Eastern Europe not be allowed to join the EU to appease a dictator and his poodle Farage?,
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
I think there's scope for probing on what aspects of Putin as a political operator Farage most admires: Murdering his opponents? Shutting down media that is any way critical?
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Good morning everyone. I missed the post about the leaders cars. So here is my list. Farage. A V12 XJS. It does not work and is riddled with electrical faults. He also has a BMW M5 in black with tinted windows as he needs to get to meetings with the Supe Rich billonaires fast who are about to place a short on oil and gas or a long on copper as there is no more left in the world. Private Jet is also used if our road network is gridlocked. He did have fun working at the London metal exchange. I still think he is there. Starmer. Nissan Leaf for todays driving. Nostagia car. Austin Allegro Vaden Plas Automatic for driving around the lanes in Oxted and Reigate,his old stomping ground. The restoration work is yet to be carried out and it is fully costed. Sunak. G Wagon Brabus. Great for a quick get away. Ed Davey. Kia EV6. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing. However his prefered method of travel is the Helter Skelter.Looking forward how all of you will bet on this election, seats per party etc. I am still not convinced Labour will get 442 seats etc. I would say 380 for them.
Sunaks car is a chopper.
And the owner is either a bigger chopper or a very small chopper.
Farage. It does not matter what he comes with. He has just got started. The hater voter element who say they will vote for Reform will switch to Tory at election time. Business as usual. Farage will probably ask them to do that later on and if he does not they will anyway. I am sure there are voters like this out there who would even they say will vote for Labour and then vote Tory. And as for the do not knowns who will they vote for I wonder?
The tories are depressed. No fight back against Nigel. He will self-destruct. Leave him to do that. He is a strong man. Seeing him burst into tears on camera would be good talking about the old days.Berni Inns and Wimpey etc.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Farage. It does not matter what he comes with. He has just got started. The hater voter element who say they will vote for Reform will switch to Tory at election time. Business as usual. Farage will probably ask them to do that later on and if he does not they will anyway. I am sure there are voters like this out there who would even they say will vote for Labour and then vote Tory. And as for the do not knowns who will they vote for I wonder?
No, I don't think Farage will endorse the Tories this side of an election.
My betting position is significantly in the red if the Tory apocalypse in the polls materialises. I was anticipating some swingback. I still think there are shy Tories out there and that a lot of Reform either won't vote or actually go Tory on the day. It's probably just normalcy bias.
With Nige he is keeping his job offers open.The tea party politicians in Europe. American and Russian job postions.If it all goes tits up with the Tories and there is no deal with them, there is a whole world out there. Fire up the Jet! Or he can communte from one job to another or work from home online.
The hardcore Reform vote might stick around as these are the conspiracy theorist , Trump loving brigade which are just angry about everything .
His other comments re Tate have been given less airtime than the Putin ones but hopefully they will come back to bite him when he does the QT next week .
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
The only people you hear describing Putin as a communist are old. I’m guessing you grew up through the 1950’s and 1960’s and don’t understand the realpolitik of post-Cold War Russia.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Remember last time he stood down his folks in Tory held seats. He could do it this time but I doubt it. Not that it will make a huge difference. I wonder if he received much attention from his parents in his childhood as he loves to be the centre of it and it is all about him.
My one image of the day and worth every single other lost opportunity
Pretty stupid from Verhofstadt, the correct thing to do is let Farage float adrift in a mess of his own making not to give him easy distractions to get out of it.
Is Sunak going to pay that £1000 he owes Piers Morgan on the bet that flights would take off to Rwanda before the election, or is he actually counting that test flight with the man they bribed to go there? Perhaps that's why that flight happened.
Farage. It does not matter what he comes with. He has just got started. The hater voter element who say they will vote for Reform will switch to Tory at election time. Business as usual. Farage will probably ask them to do that later on and if he does not they will anyway. I am sure there are voters like this out there who would even they say will vote for Labour and then vote Tory. And as for the do not knowns who will they vote for I wonder?
No, I don't think Farage will endorse the Tories this side of an election.
My betting position is significantly in the red if the Tory apocalypse in the polls materialises. I was anticipating some swingback. I still think there are shy Tories out there and that a lot of Reform either won't vote or actually go Tory on the day. It's probably just normalcy bias.
With you on this Foxy.
I’m surprised at the absence of movement to the tories. It’s starting to get late in the day.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, where would he have to invade, for you to change your mind and say: "Okay, he needs combatting?"
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
The only people you hear describing Putin as a communist are old. I’m guessing you grew up through the 1950’s and 1960’s and don’t understand the realpolitik of post-Cold War Russia.
Riiight, so when he's forming alliances with Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un its all a big right wing plot. No communists involved.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Yep. He’s a Realpolitik Russian Nationalist.
If you want to stick left or right on it, then more right / fascism but then you start getting drawn into horseshoe theory.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
You make the same mistake that the pro-Putin left wing Tankies do. Russia has not been Communist for over 3 decades. It is a dictatorial centralised militarised nationalist state with territorial claims on neighbouring states that glorifies violence and the strong man. In short it is a fascist state.
Remember last time he stood down his folks in Tory held seats. He could do it this time but I doubt it. Not that it will make a huge difference. I wonder if he received much attention from his parents in his childhood as he loves to be the centre of it and it is all about him.
Last time he didn’t stand candidates there. This time they are already standing and it’s too late to pull out.
Besides, the Tories are now so unpopular that Farage announcing a deal with them would destroy his credibility completely, and probably make very little difference. Just as many of his voters want to see the back of this government as those supporting Labour or the LibDems.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Many moons ago, I read an article in which Hitler led the German Communist party to victory in the early 1930s, and then war with Russia a few years later. ISTR it posited that during his time in the Bavarian Soviet Republic immediately post-WW1, he saw a way to power.
As I've said passim, IMV there's very little difference in the effects of Communism and fascism. They're both cheeks of the same arse. As an example, Mussolini started off as a Communist.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
Quite
Frankly we should be pushing western values against a kleptocrat regime just to make the point.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
This is why I'm bemused by people such as Kim Philby stating that he was spying for Russia for anti-imperialist reasons. You could, at a stretch, argue that before WW2 (though I'd argue you were wrong); after WW2 it was very clear that Russia itself was far more imperialist than Britain. Philby spied *for* imperialism, not against.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
It' still as it always has been a handful of people sitting at the top taking all the spoils. Same shit different toilet
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
You make the same mistake that the pro-Putin left wing Tankies do. Russia has not been Communist for over 3 decades. It is a dictatorial centralised militarised nationalist state with territorial claims on neighbouring states that glorifies violence and the strong man. In short it is a fascist state.
You make the mistake that Russian Communism was somehow different to old style Russian Imperialism. It was the same system in a different package.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
It' still as it always has been a handful of people sitting at the top taking all the spoils. Same shit different toilet
You could say that about a lot of western states.
As observed above, it’s well known that there are similarities between dictatorships of right and left. Nevertheless there are significant differences, particularly in the way that the economy is managed. Putin’s reliance on his billionaire oligarchs managing major privately owned enterprises mirrors Hitler and his oligarchic capitalists, not Stalin’s state controlled state planned economy.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, where would he have to invade, for you to change your mind and say: "Okay, he needs combatting?"
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
So where are your red lines?
I think we can do far more harm to the long term interests of Putin's Russia by becoming self sufficient in oil and gas, and then net exporters of oil and gas.
Then build up our armed forces, especially Navy and missile defence, to ensure that we are invasion proof, both against the vanishingly slim prospect of a Putin invasion, and the more realistic prospect of a Chinese one. I would never have got rid of our capacity to make virgin steel - that was a pro-Russian decision if ever there was one.
I think your red lines question is a very similar question to 'how bad would the climate crisis have to get in order for you to grudgingly agree that it was worth destroying the economy to fight' - and the answer is that I don't know - I would respond case by case. If I said to you that I would send British troops to war against Russia if there was a terrorist attack on London with a 'From Russia xxx' calling card left in the rubble, I would see myself as inviting that atrocity.
If I was making decisions, I would always consider the security of the British people first, and the security and safety of the rest of the world second but still of importance. I think that's all anyone should do.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
In his autobiography Obama referred to him as an old-fashioned Russian Nationalist. I think that sums him up succinctly.
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
Stalin was a land grabbing russian nationalist too despte being Georgian. As was Lenin. Just because they wave fancy titles about doesnt mean to say the ethos of the russian state has changed. It has always been about a handful of people running the place to make themselves richer and expand the state they control. In the C2o they swapped aristocrats for middle class psychopaths with red flags.
While that’s true of Stalin, they continued paying lip service to communism - and backing revolutionary communist abroad - until the dissolution of the USSR. Russian imperialism has pretty well entirely replaced that as a governing ideology.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
You make the same mistake that the pro-Putin left wing Tankies do. Russia has not been Communist for over 3 decades. It is a dictatorial centralised militarised nationalist state with territorial claims on neighbouring states that glorifies violence and the strong man. In short it is a fascist state.
You make the mistake that Russian Communism was somehow different to old style Russian Imperialism. It was the same system in a different package.
No, it really was not. Communism as manifested in the Soviet Union was quite a break from Tsarism, and Putinism is more like a reversion to Tsarism than it ever was to Communism.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
Apart from everything being state owned, and private property of any significance being almost illegal. The oligarchic economy he runs nowadays has little in common with how the USSR’s economy used to be run.
It' still as it always has been a handful of people sitting at the top taking all the spoils. Same shit different toilet
You could say that about a lot of western states.
As observed above, it’s well known that there are similarities between dictatorships of right and left. Nevertheless there are significant differences, particularly in the way that the economy is managed. Putin’s reliance on his billionaire oligarchs managing major privately owned enterprises mirrors Hitler and his oligarchic capitalists, not Stalin’s state controlled state planned economy.
If you are looking at financial systems you would argue Putinism would not go to war as its bad for business.. They still did - in Russia power trumps money and always has.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
The Trumpian wing of the Conservative party - Braverman, Patel, Rees Mogg, Berry, Jenrick etc - want a merger with Reform and Farage in a senior leadership position in what results. Attack Farage and the Tories very publicly split as the Trumpists come out in support of him. This is a battle for after the election.
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
Where is your red line? What would Putin have to do, where would he have to invade, for you to change your mind and say: "Okay, he needs combatting?"
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
So where are your red lines?
I think we can do far more harm to the long term interests of Putin's Russia by becoming self sufficient in oil and gas, and then net exporters of oil and gas.
Then build up our armed forces, especially Navy and missile defence, to ensure that we are invasion proof, both against the vanishingly slim prospect of a Putin invasion, and the more realistic prospect of a Chinese one. I would never have got rid of our capacity to make virgin steel - that was a pro-Russian decision if ever there was one.
I think your red lines question is a very similar question to 'how bad would the climate crisis have to get in order for you to grudgingly agree that it was worth destroying the economy to fight' - and the answer is that I don't know - I would respond case by case. If I said to you that I would send British troops to war against Russia if there was a terrorist attack on London with a 'From Russia xxx' calling card left in the rubble, I would see myself as inviting that atrocity.
If I was making decisions, I would always consider the security of the British people first, and the security and safety of the rest of the world second but still of importance. I think that's all anyone should do.
I'm pretty sure that there isn't enough oil and gas easily exploitable to be self-sufficient in oil and gas, especially at reasonable cost. I might be wrong - Richard would know more.
There was a Russian terrorist attack on London. There was one on Salisbury.
The problem is, you'd see the 'From Russia xxx' calling card and claim it's all a false flag, and that Russia is innocent. That's what you've done before, perhaps because your brain has rotted from reading too many 'alternative' news sites...
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
It does sound terrible, because it is. It's the American strategy to try to bleed a geopolitical rival dry over the long term, and Ukraine is sacrifice. I don't subscribe to that strategy for many reasons, both moral and practical.
Is Sunak going to pay that £1000 he owes Piers Morgan on the bet that flights would take off to Rwanda before the election, or is he actually counting that test flight with the man they bribed to go there? Perhaps that's why that flight happened.
Unless it's been overtaken by events. (Was it really a test flight, though? Flying people to a different country isn't a concept that needs testing- even Wizz! manage that. The bit that needed testing was forcing people onto one way flights.)
I'm sure a disreputable troublemaker would be able to link this to the more recent gambling fiasco.
Once again, whenever women's rights come up as a topic, the misogynists on here find it impossible to talk about it as matter in its own right without either dismissing or insulting the women who raise it or making it about men who claim to be women.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
I take it that you're of the view that trans people don't exist?
I would love the economic policies of Liz Truss - perhaps that cretin would prefer us to do the same things we've been doing for the past 30 years and hope that works.
As for the pro-Putin policies of Corbyn, I'll settle for being neutral, making a huge amount of money off any war, then only actually joining when our fleet gets Pearl Harboured - that strategy doesn't seem to have done America's long term reputation or its bank balance any harm.
You can't be neutral against evil.
America stayed out of the war until the end of 1941, with the British Empire liquidated to pay for their help in the war. They joined only when attacked directly, yet still their record in World War II is a pillar of their nation's story. So clearly you can be pretty neutral against it.
Yes, and that proves my point. Their staying neutral made things much worse for them when they joined, than if they had joined in back in 1939.
It's interesting to consider what would have happened if the USA had joined in back in 1939. Would France have fallen? would Japan have decided to attack Pearl Harbour given how an America at war would have increased their military output?
(The last question seems particularly interesting, given the somewhat insane decision to attack Pearl Harbour in the first place.)
Of course, the earlier they joined, the better it would have gone, and the easier on the other allies. But that isn't the point. They profited massively be remaining out of the fighting until they eventually joined - I don’t know any serious account of the economic history of the period that says they didn't. War is a ghastly, costly, mincing machine of life and treasure for the combatants. But it's very profitable for peaceful countries who stay out of it. See also Switzerland.
So... you say accept profit over morality, even if it means it costs more (in blood and money) when your morality eventually wins?
It's an idea, I suppose. Not a good one, though.
I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing, but in any case, it worked out very well for America. Over two wars where they delayed entering, only doing so when they had accumulated plentiful resources and were able to deal the decisive blow, they became the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who condemns them for that - do you? Yet we, in what is now a hugely declined and weakened state, are still expected to lead the charge. If Nigel Farage is saying that we shouldn't, I'm afraid I completely agree.
"I think the morality of the situation is far more nuanced than you seem capable of seeing"
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
There is no moral nuance in what Putin has done, but there is nuance in the decision on the extent to which the UK Government should put UK citizens in jeopardy in order to combat him. It is a difficult lesson to learn that we cannot be the world's policeman, and sometimes our interventions don't make things better.
This isn't about being a policeman. This is about survival. Putin is a direct threat to this country in just the same way Hitler was in the 1930s. Either we stop him now or we have to try and stop him later. At the moment, terrible as it sounds, we have a chance to stop him whilst somebody else is doing the dying for us. All they ask is we support them with the tools they need to fight.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
Quite
Frankly we should be pushing western values against a kleptocrat regime just to make the point.
Ukraine doing so was what, of course, prompted his invasion.
An economically backward, equally corrupt state as an independent neighbour didn’t bother him. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a prosperous democracy was unacceptable. You won’t hear Farage acknowledging that.
Conservatives still with nothing to say about Farage, did their social media team all go for a long lunch yesterday and get pissed?
They are still trying to find a small enough picture of Farage to fit in Putin's top pocket....
How they haven’t gone with a Mr Toad meme yet I don’t know.
The Tories seem to be meekly sitting back and letting Reform steal all their voters, for fear that if they say ‘boo’ it might upset their own members?
It really is bizarre to behold. Supine, weak, and lacking moral strength of character.
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
Putin is a signed up Communist which puts him on the far left.
No, the economy and government he runs is of the right. Aside from his past there’s nothing socialist about it or him.
There was nothing socualist about the regime he grew up in.
So let me get this right. Putin is a Communist despite growing up in a non-socialist regime. Presumably he will be rolling out collectivisation and the communes some time soon?
Comments
I thought you were on the left? Are you saying he should be deported?
Quite frankly if all our immigrants were like him, hard working, smart, cerebral, really well informed, law abiding and keen to integrate and get his kids into good jobs and DEEPLY appreciative of tolerant British culture and our traditions of free speech and worship - then I would have no problems with immigration at all
The problem is: far too many are not
They never learn. This is why they must be replaced as the main right wing party
So if we assume that the Labour Party and its MPs of the time were solidly left-wing (a bit of a stretch admittedly), then JKR and the left-wing have been out-of-sync for two decades.
Incidentally the GRA will be 20 years old in 9 days de facto, although it didn't come into effect until 4 April 2005.
Notes
In fairness, back in 2010, I recon the odds on the BBC surviving 14 years of tory government - Intact- must surely have been greater than evens.
It's had a few limbs chopped off, but fundamentally, it's still, just about, the BBC of old, that we know and love.
Failure to fix the nation’s skills shortage threatens to snuff out the green shoots of growth"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/21/keir-starmer-jobs-market-crisis-labour/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afNMxiUaGTo
Barcelona, a top Spanish holiday destination, announced on Friday that it will bar apartment rentals to tourists by 2028, an unexpectedly drastic move as it seeks to rein in soaring housing costs and make the city liveable for residents
No. Simply no.
Where is the 'nuance' in the morality of what Putin is doing? How can you claim it is *not* bad, reprehensible, evil. etc?
The only nuance is if you read - and agree - with the pitiful 'excuses' he made for this war. Which, I remind you, you have track record of with flight MH17, to your shame.
Now, I have known, and been friends with, several trans people. I know they exist, and I have had a little insight into them - or as much as you can get from knowing a few people on a broad category. Trans people exist. In one case, he wanted to be a she from when I first met him (as he was then) at school when we were fourteen or so. He was not wanting attention (far from it); he was not suffering from a mental illness, as some claim trans people are (would they say the same about homosexuals?). He was trans - a boy in the wrong body. And as an adult, he transitioned.
So what we have are people (some (not all) TERFs) - denying a group exists, and wanting their rights removed.
Like everything, it is a balance. But some seem to want the balance loaded massively against trans people - because they don't want trans people to exist.
Farage fly's in, distracts disillusioned 2019 Conservative voters, then blows his campaign sky high and can fly back for his Trump payday.
I remember, in the wake of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a similar realisation dawning on some folk. The people you thought would be unambiguous in their support - noisy lefties - proved to be less than reliable.
Try putting Jews into that and seeing how it looks.
"Many people would prefer Jews not to exist. But they do exist. Like everything else it is a balance ..."
We remember the generation who came to settle in Britain from the Caribbean, at this country’s request.
Britain is at its best when it welcomes migrants. A once sea-faring nation we thrive best as an outward-facing culturally enriched country.
Thank goodness for migrants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43782241
should hang their heads in shame
Will they reject Farage's appalling comments? Will they fuck. It's quite incredible to witness their dissembling bullshit and inability to call out evil. Because that's what it is: pure evil.
Nearly a century ago we had all this bullshit from arseholes who tried to argue that what Hitler was doing wasn't wrong.
We have two groups of people: women and trans people. The latter is tiny compared to the former. Who 'deserves' support? The answer, of course, is both. And that is where there needs to be a balance.
"Many women see this as male entitlement in a dress and they won't "wheesht"."
That perhaps gets to the nub of the issue. Trans is much more than just 'male entitlement in a dress'; and in fact that does what I state above in denying trans people exist. "They're not trans! They're just men in a dress!"
Not only is that wrong; it also ignores transmen.
F1: It's ironic, but I considered backing Sainz each way for the win this weekend (at 26). His odds have fallen to 13 but I think it's less rather than more likely he'll get it. Mercedes looking good.
Oh. I see. No you haven't. So you base your fuckwitted stupidity on occasional journeys in a taxi.
"British culture" means what, exactly? That we all become like you? Nasty little shits who spend their lives off their tits on heroin and other illegal substances and brag about shagging around, including of girls the age of your daughter.
You're too stupid to have learned about the history of these islands and the cultural matrix interwoven into our DNA. There is NO white supremacist version of "British Culture" and "worship" but an ever-changing melting pot.
You really are an utter moron FAKE @Leon . As stupid as your hero Trump.
I agree it will cost the party votes. And for the first time it gives me pause to allow Sunak the benefit of the doubt in not standing him up as a Conservative candidate. But most reform voters aren’t listening.
The next election will be one that troubles most here I think. Even now there’s no great love in the country for Starmer. And the next 5 years will likely have seen the beginnings of AI job destruction, the end of the global credit cycle (potentially with a lot of sparks) and much else that will I expect make the country ready for a change. MEGA here we come. Sigh.
But I will not stoop to their level and will answer the question. It is fine to have a policy of opposing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and attempt to stop any country building more. But it is not fine to kill innocent civilians in pursuit of that policy. The problem with your absolutely absurd comparison is that the EU has no army, no military aspirations and no history of any military activity. To use countries joining a peaceful trade arrangement as a justification for war is the act of a political appeaser.
So the question remains why should the countries of Eastern Europe not be allowed to join the EU to appease a dictator and his poodle Farage?,
Also, 40 Russian refineries have now been hit, taking down 14% of Russian refining capacity.
Starmer: Nissan Qashqai
Sunak: Augusta A109
Davey: Brompton e-bike
Farage: Jag XJ12
They should be drawing a clear line in the sand and calling out Farage for the far right Putin apologist he is.
My betting position is significantly in the red if the Tory apocalypse in the polls materialises. I was anticipating some swingback. I still think there are shy Tories out there and that a lot of Reform either won't vote or actually go Tory on the day. It's probably just normalcy bias.
My one image of the day and worth every single other lost opportunity
Contender for favorite chart of all time:
Predictions vs. Reality for solar energy.
https://x.com/AlecStapp/status/1803810075909161296
His other comments re Tate have been given less airtime than the Putin ones but hopefully they will come back to bite him when he does the QT next week .
Personally I'd add that he's a little thug from the back streets of St Petersburg. Left and right doesn't really come into it. He's a blot on the political landscape, one way or another.
I’m surprised at the absence of movement to the tories. It’s starting to get late in the day.
And need I remind you of the attack he made in Salisbury? Or Litvinenko in London? He had already placed UK citizens in jeopardy. And you will not count MH17, which had ten UK citizens on board, because you blame anyone but Putin for that...
Putin's evil has already attacked us, and there are no indication he would not do so again.
So where are your red lines?
If you want to stick left or right on it, then more right / fascism but then you start getting drawn into horseshoe theory.
Russian Nationalist thug is spot on.
That seems like a bloody good bargain to me.
Besides, the Tories are now so unpopular that Farage announcing a deal with them would destroy his credibility completely, and probably make very little difference. Just as many of his voters want to see the back of this government as those supporting Labour or the LibDems.
As I've said passim, IMV there's very little difference in the effects of Communism and fascism. They're both cheeks of the same arse. As an example, Mussolini started off as a Communist.
Frankly we should be pushing western values against a kleptocrat regime just to make the point.
As observed above, it’s well known that there are similarities between dictatorships of right and left. Nevertheless there are significant differences, particularly in the way that the economy is managed. Putin’s reliance on his billionaire oligarchs managing major privately owned enterprises mirrors Hitler and his oligarchic capitalists, not Stalin’s state controlled state planned economy.
Then build up our armed forces, especially Navy and missile defence, to ensure that we are invasion proof, both against the vanishingly slim prospect of a Putin invasion, and the more realistic prospect of a Chinese one. I would never have got rid of our capacity to make virgin steel - that was a pro-Russian decision if ever there was one.
I think your red lines question is a very similar question to 'how bad would the climate crisis have to get in order for you to grudgingly agree that it was worth destroying the economy to fight' - and the answer is that I don't know - I would respond case by case. If I said to you that I would send British troops to war against Russia if there was a terrorist attack on London with a 'From Russia xxx' calling card left in the rubble, I would see myself as inviting that atrocity.
If I was making decisions, I would always consider the security of the British people first, and the security and safety of the rest of the world second but still of importance. I think that's all anyone should do.
Russian imperialism has pretty well entirely replaced that as a governing ideology.
If you cannot be clear about what sex is, you cannot protect sex based rights or fight against sex-based oppression and discrimination. That discrimination and oppression is overwhelmingly endured by women. Here and in virtually every country in the world. Nor can you protect rights based on sexual orientation which is based on sex. That too is felt by many gay men and women around the world and, increasingly, by lesbians here who are often targeted by a very unpleasant category of men.
The Lib Dems and the Greens have made it clear in their manifestos that they will remove sex-based rights from the Equality Act. Labour have cobbled together some sort of fudge but Starmer has been all over the place on this and his arrogantly sexist response this week - where he needed a man to say something women had been saying for ages before he could agree to it - did him no favours at all.
As for girls with dysphoria they need proper treatment and help not as Khan has done the glorification of self-mutilation. If a bikini-ready body is not fit to be displayed, why is a self-harmed one? The fact that dysphoria in women tends to happen in teenage girls (rather than in middle-aged women, unlike the case with men) raises issues about how we treat girls, our expectations of them, the stereotypes imposed and the pressures they are under. The answer to those is not mutilation and drugs.
Treat what the GLP says with care. They have made unevidenced assertions in order to raise money. They have not always been accurate in their statements. They brought a legal action claiming the NHS discriminated against trans people. They lost and the evidence was that the NHS had increased its funding but could not find sufficient doctors and nurses to work in this area of medicine. Given the abuse doctors like Dr Cass have faced, is this any surprise? As for the legal issues, the Supreme Court will be ruling on the FWS appeal and this will determine what sex in the Equality Act means and its interaction with what the GRA says. Though it may make the position even more complicated and confused. That's the trouble with creating legal fictions at odds with reality.
The Tories should have learnt that lesson over Rwanda and indeed Brexit.
There was a Russian terrorist attack on London. There was one on Salisbury.
The problem is, you'd see the 'From Russia xxx' calling card and claim it's all a false flag, and that Russia is innocent. That's what you've done before, perhaps because your brain has rotted from reading too many 'alternative' news sites...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/23/rishi-sunaks-1000-rwanda-flights-bet-with-piers-morgan-off/
Unless it's been overtaken by events. (Was it really a test flight, though? Flying people to a different country isn't a concept that needs testing- even Wizz! manage that. The bit that needed testing was forcing people onto one way flights.)
I'm sure a disreputable troublemaker would be able to link this to the more recent gambling fiasco.
When the fun stops and all that.
An economically backward, equally corrupt state as an independent neighbour didn’t bother him. The prospect of Ukraine becoming a prosperous democracy was unacceptable.
You won’t hear Farage acknowledging that.