The BBC should be re-named the RBC Reform Broadcast Corporation.
They’ll only have themselves to blame if Reform get in and finish them off .
In this case, that’s hardly fair, as it was an excellent piece of investigative journalism (reporters are banned from asylum hotels, so it took quite some time).
That the story doesn’t look good for the government (and particularly bad for the previous one, which left the, the problem) is hardly the reporter’s fault. But it is a very clear demonstration that the right wing attacks on BBC reporting have little basis in fact.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
I was surprised no one's been talking about Andy Burnham's take over bid much discussed on todays five o'clock news with Evan Davis. As I see it there are two snags. One is Andy Burnham being seen as the answer and the other are the precedents ... May Johnson Truss and Sunak
Burnham snags;
1. He's not an MP 2. He can't become an MP without contesting a by-election, and he's cowardly custard (understandably). 3. If he becomes an MP the existing MPs seem unlikely to say 'omg we've so been waiting for you'. 4. Fellow MPs are not his biggest hurdle. 5. He's completely useless
Apart from that he's almost nailed on as the next Jesus Christ.
(There is possibly a way where he could get elected Labour leader and then backdoor himself via the Lords. Or at least I think its just about plausible)
Let's take an example of the way it works (invented examples). Take these example statements:
"The country has gone to the dogs!" "We need more kids! There is a demographic crisis!" "Career women have fewer kids!" "Abortion is problematic!" "My wife is a stay-at-home mom and is happy and contented." "Birth control are causing the fish to become women!" "Look at this woman who failed in this job!" "Women are unhappier!" etc.
All of these are arguable, and not, in their own way, bad. But put together, they create a message that is IMV dangerous. And that is the way intelligent people can word things. The trick is to keep individual statements just on the right side of acceptable and factual, whilst not saying your real message.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
I was surprised no one's been talking about Andy Burnham's take over bid much discussed on todays five o'clock news with Evan Davis. As I see it there are two snags. One is Andy Burnham being seen as the answer and the other are the precedents ... May Johnson Truss and Sunak
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
I was surprised no one's been talking about Andy Burnham's take over bid much discussed on todays five o'clock news with Evan Davis. As I see it there are two snags. One is Andy Burnham being seen as the answer and the other are the precedents ... May Johnson Truss and Sunak
Burnham snags;
1. He's not an MP 2. He can't become an MP without contesting a by-election, and he's cowardly custard (understandably). 3. If he becomes an MP the existing MPs seem unlikely to say 'omg we've so been waiting for you'. 4. Fellow MPs are not his biggest hurdle. 5. He's completely useless
Apart from that he's almost nailed on as the next Jesus Christ.
(There is possibly a way where he could get elected Labour leader and then backdoor himself via the Lords. Or at least I think its just about plausible)
On the cowardly custard thing, if he really wanted to be the next leader, the way back in was the 2024 general election.
And, whilst his ego might be stroked by all this "if only you were PM, Andy" stuff, why would he want the job? He'd rapidly be as hated as everyone else who has tried to run the country recently. The only question is whether he is being talked up out of desperation or boredom.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
Carp is traditional at Christmas in Poland. No idea why, as I agree on boniness and taste.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
I think that's pike. Carp is a very popular fish in most of East and Central Europe, it's the German Christmas Eve dish for example. Had some as a starter in Montenegro yesterday
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
I think that's pike. Carp is a very popular fish in most of East and Central Europe, it's the German Christmas Eve dish for example. Had some as a starter in Montenegro yesterday
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
I was surprised no one's been talking about Andy Burnham's take over bid much discussed on todays five o'clock news with Evan Davis. As I see it there are two snags. One is Andy Burnham being seen as the answer and the other are the precedents ... May Johnson Truss and Sunak
Burnham snags;
1. He's not an MP 2. He can't become an MP without contesting a by-election, and he's cowardly custard (understandably). 3. If he becomes an MP the existing MPs seem unlikely to say 'omg we've so been waiting for you'. 4. Fellow MPs are not his biggest hurdle. 5. He's completely useless
Apart from that he's almost nailed on as the next Jesus Christ.
(There is possibly a way where he could get elected Labour leader and then backdoor himself via the Lords. Or at least I think its just about plausible)
On the cowardly custard thing, if he really wanted to be the next leader, the way back in was the 2024 general election.
And, whilst his ego might be stroked by all this "if only you were PM, Andy" stuff, why would he want the job? He'd rapidly be as hated as everyone else who has tried to run the country recently. The only question is whether he is being talked up out of desperation or boredom.
Well he wants the job - clearly he wants the job. He's built a little network of journalists and fellow travellers that are making a noise.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
Farage doesn’t know the difference between carp and crap.
A very good PPB for the Lib Dems. Though he didn't mention them it was following the theme of compassion against the ugly brutality of the Robinson Farage combo
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
A very good PPB for the Lib Dems. Though he didn't mention them it was following the theme of compassion against the ugly brutality of the Robinson Farage combo
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Aren't carp notoriously not worth the effort to catch and eat as they have an astonishing array of bones? (I may be mixing it up, but I think it's carp)
I think that's pike. Carp is a very popular fish in most of East and Central Europe, it's the German Christmas Eve dish for example. Had some as a starter in Montenegro yesterday
Yes, I had cold marinated carp in Montenegro, by Lake Skadar, with hot boiled potatoes and wilted greens
A local delicacy
And it was YUMMY, I have no idea if they spent 4 hours tweezering all the bones out, but if they did it was worth it
Is that in the same issue where they interview the Tate brothers and say they think they're innocent?
Alleged human trafficking, rape, coercion of multiple victims and definitely toxic misogyny OK vs convicted sexual touching BAD? All a bit confused amongst the ranks of professional racists at Marshall publications
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
On picking up my 10 year old daughter today, she tells me that 'apparently Donald Trump has offered [sic] to delete all the pictures and videos of black people' - is this a new thing I have missed? Or the playground grapevine distilling rumour to the point of uselessness?
It may be a reference to this sort of thing that Trump has been doing:
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
Do you agree on his support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine?
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
Time to shoot them out of any NATO sky immediately
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
"The science on gravity isn't settled" Farage exclaimed as he walked out of a 10th storey window.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
"The science on gravity isn't settled" Farage exclaimed as he walked out of a 10th story window.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane in 2015 when it strayed across the border momentarily. Remind me how the consequent hot war between Russia and Turkey went.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
"The science on gravity isn't settled" Farage exclaimed as he walked out of a 10th story window.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
Appeasement is never the answer
Putin needs to understand that his drones and aircraft will be instantly shot down in NATO airspace
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
Time to shoot them out of any NATO sky immediately
Personally, I would favour intrusive overflights with UAVs over Russia instead, particularly the Kaliningrad enclave. This would be an appropriate response, and expose the poverty of Russias air defense.
Some Baltic sea trials of the Ukranian sea drones as joint exercises perhaps too.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
"The science on gravity isn't settled" Farage exclaimed as he walked out of a 10th story window.
But it’s not…
That was part of the joke.
Probably still best not to walk out of 10th storey windows.
The BBC should be re-named the RBC Reform Broadcast Corporation.
They’ll only have themselves to blame if Reform get in and finish them off .
In this case, that’s hardly fair, as it was an excellent piece of investigative journalism (reporters are banned from asylum hotels, so it took quite some time).
That the story doesn’t look good for the government (and particularly bad for the previous one, which left the, the problem) is hardly the reporter’s fault. But it is a very clear demonstration that the right wing attacks on BBC reporting have little basis in fact.
I think there’s several factors at play:
1) given the party system has fractured so much, broadcasters don’t have much to go on in terms of political balance/coverage rules for the new situation. This is leading to some parties getting more coverage than others for reasons, I imagine, that are coming down to the whims of editors and interpretation of vague guidelines. They really should be firmed up, but I suspect everyone is in a holding pattern, hoping that the situation might resolve itself and we get back to 2 party politics again.
2) the BBC I think are overcompensating somewhat for the fact that they are painfully aware that very few of their staff would even admit to knowing a Reform voter, let alone being one. That is not an ideal place to be, for a national broadcaster who is supposed to represent everyone. As a result, I suspect that there is a slight subconscious bias against going too hard on Reform, for fear of being seen to be a gang of out of touch liberal elites.
My view on the whole thing is regardless of the coverage, it’s incumbent on the other parties to explain how they will do better than Reform and why electing Reform is a bad idea, rather than getting dragged into debates about airtime/partiality. I think Davey has made an error on that front.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
If Boris does fancy a return to PM, then it's almost certainly as a Tory, and to do that he needs Reform voters.
Even if they'd got on like a house on fire, I can't either him or Farage being able to share the limelight, so it's one or the other.
Plans to extend high-speed rail across the north of England have been delayed further and will not now be announced by the prime minister at the Labour Party conference next week.
The BBC understands concerns over the long-term costs of the line earmarked between Liverpool and Manchester have pushed back the revival of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
I dont think "turning the other cheek" matches the 2nd Ammendment very neatly.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
The BBC should be re-named the RBC Reform Broadcast Corporation.
They’ll only have themselves to blame if Reform get in and finish them off .
In this case, that’s hardly fair, as it was an excellent piece of investigative journalism (reporters are banned from asylum hotels, so it took quite some time).
That the story doesn’t look good for the government (and particularly bad for the previous one, which left the, the problem) is hardly the reporter’s fault. But it is a very clear demonstration that the right wing attacks on BBC reporting have little basis in fact.
I think there’s several factors at play:
1) given the party system has fractured so much, broadcasters don’t have much to go on in terms of political balance/coverage rules for the new situation. This is leading to some parties getting more coverage than others for reasons, I imagine, that are coming down to the whims of editors and interpretation of vague guidelines. They really should be firmed up, but I suspect everyone is in a holding pattern, hoping that the situation might resolve itself and we get back to 2 party politics again.
2) the BBC I think are overcompensating somewhat for the fact that they are painfully aware that very few of their staff would even admit to knowing a Reform voter, let alone being one. That is not an ideal place to be, for a national broadcaster who is supposed to represent everyone. As a result, I suspect that there is a slight subconscious bias against going too hard on Reform, for fear of being seen to be a gang of out of touch liberal elites.
My view on the whole thing is regardless of the coverage, it’s incumbent on the other parties to explain how they will do better than Reform and why electing Reform is a bad idea, rather than getting dragged into debates about airtime/partiality. I think Davey has made an error on that front.
Political balance rules only apply to official campaigning periods.
I think that LDs (and Greens too) putting down a few markers is not a bad thing.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
In all fairness, that poll was a lifetime ago so the bucket of salt is required.
I recognize you are of the view the removal of Boris Johnson by the Conservative Party was the biggest mistake made in the 2019-24 period but to have had Johnson lead your party into an election with all the baggage he had accumulated would likely have precipitated as great a disaster as befell the party under Sunak, if not greater.
The contrast in the behaviour of Johnson and Truss on the one hand and Sunak on the other is all too obvious.
Nick Ferrari took down Farage on LBC with a gotcha that has Farage pleading the 5th as far as Trump's link between Paracetamol/ Tylenol and autism is concerned. Farage even denied science by suggesting scientists didn't realise how dangerous Thalidomide was until we realised it was, implying Trump may have a point about Paracetamol. It has been the top story on LBC all day.
I was thus interested to see how BBC PM broached a clear error by Farage. The answer is it didn't. The story didn't make the programme, although they did find a New Statesman article that hints at a huge bust-up between Burnham and Starmer.
So Farage f**** up and the BBC bury it.
The Beeb seems to be paralysed. Rabbit meets cobra.
The BBC are playing the long game. If they can help engineer a right wing dictatorship, they will be the state broadcaster and all the other broadcasters will be closed down. The licence fee will be increased to £1,984 per year.
I think this may be the silliest comment I've ever read on PB, unless it's a joke.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
Mildly more hopeful about the gov'ts one in, one out policy than I was this morning. If we're exporting single young men and bringing in family groups then the dependants are already baked in to the "in" part, whilst being excluded/reduced from the "out" part long term. I assume France isn't bothered about the what looks to be unfavourable trade on it's part as it'll just send them wherever or wait for them to head back on the dinghies; though I'd hope we'd be fingerprinting the "outs" for IMMEDIATE removal back to wherever if they come back in and match the fingerprint database.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane in 2015 when it strayed across the border momentarily. Remind me how the consequent hot war between Russia and Turkey went.
If Estonia had the air defence systems which will be delivered next year, they would absolutely have shot down the Russian jets.
It's a more difficult decision for the visiting NATO jets, over foreign territory, which were operating under the existing NATO rules of engagement (which are in place for obvious reasons).
Following the incident, it's pretty likely that the rules of engagement while they remain in Estonia are going to be changed. If there's a next time, then it's quite likely the NATO jets will be more aggressive.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
Anti drone tech over all key national infrastructure. And the rest of spending focused on protecting surface and sub sea economic assets in the Atlantic and North Sea.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
It's your party's funeral...
Under Kemi I suppose you mean, even MiC today had the Tories 8% behind Reform and 5% behind Labour and that was her best poll for weeks
Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by police for referring to herself as a “spaz”. Under the UK’s present government, this authoritarian nonsense is only going to get worse…"
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
It's not so simple, since waiting for them to get closer to large population centres means an increased likelihood of casualties in the ground.
Which would be embarrassing for whichever country's jets shot the Russians down.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Farage’s is just about at the claiming to have lied to demonstrate a greater truth stage.
The BBC should be re-named the RBC Reform Broadcast Corporation.
They’ll only have themselves to blame if Reform get in and finish them off .
In this case, that’s hardly fair, as it was an excellent piece of investigative journalism (reporters are banned from asylum hotels, so it took quite some time).
That the story doesn’t look good for the government (and particularly bad for the previous one, which left the, the problem) is hardly the reporter’s fault. But it is a very clear demonstration that the right wing attacks on BBC reporting have little basis in fact.
I think there’s several factors at play:
1) given the party system has fractured so much, broadcasters don’t have much to go on in terms of political balance/coverage rules for the new situation. This is leading to some parties getting more coverage than others for reasons, I imagine, that are coming down to the whims of editors and interpretation of vague guidelines. They really should be firmed up, but I suspect everyone is in a holding pattern, hoping that the situation might resolve itself and we get back to 2 party politics again.
2) the BBC I think are overcompensating somewhat for the fact that they are painfully aware that very few of their staff would even admit to knowing a Reform voter, let alone being one. That is not an ideal place to be, for a national broadcaster who is supposed to represent everyone. As a result, I suspect that there is a slight subconscious bias against going too hard on Reform, for fear of being seen to be a gang of out of touch liberal elites.
My view on the whole thing is regardless of the coverage, it’s incumbent on the other parties to explain how they will do better than Reform and why electing Reform is a bad idea, rather than getting dragged into debates about airtime/partiality. I think Davey has made an error on that front.
The BBC are not crazy. The LDs are not box office, both because they are inherently boring and because they cannot possibly form a government. Reform have the winning combination of being off the wall and completely crazy + they have a 30% and currently growing chance of running the country.
(In the USA the Democrats have pulled off the extraordinary stunt of failing to be box office even though they could be running the country well before Reform run the UK and are the only credible force to ward off a totalitarian state. How this state of insensate boringness can be achieved I have no idea. It must be hard.)
The big thing the BBC can do for its punters is to examine in critical detail but fairly Reform's policies, the gaps, the inconsistencies, the evasions, the fiscal implications, detailing the questions they don't want to answer especially about public services, debt, tax, deficit, employment, migration, separation of powers and so on. Of course they should be doing this for the government and Tories (not easy as they are all over the place) as well, and to be fair to some extent they do.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane in 2015 when it strayed across the border momentarily. Remind me how the consequent hot war between Russia and Turkey went.
If Estonia had the air defence systems which will be delivered next year, they would absolutely have shot down the Russian jets.
It's a more difficult decision for the visiting NATO jets, over foreign territory, which were operating under the existing NATO rules of engagement (which are in place for obvious reasons).
Following the incident, it's pretty likely that the rules of engagement while they remain in Estonia are going to be changed. If there's a next time, then it's quite likely the NATO jets will be more aggressive.
Putin needs an off-ramp for his disatrastrous Ukrainian adventure. The only one that saves his neck involves NATO getting involved directly.
Instead, we should say via backchannels that for every incursion we will quietly assist Ukraine in targetting Ukrainian missiles onto another plum Russian hydrocarbon asset. That way, every provocative incursion hastens the end of the Russian economy.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
In Ukraine they have 4 or 5 layers for different types of drone, whilst here I'm not aware of anything in service that is under about 50-100k per shot.
It will be a 2-5 year job, short of panic stations, to get anything serious in place. In most places we don't even have hardened aircraft shelters.
And I don't see any comms activity to start any conditioning of public opinions.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
Anti drone tech over all key national infrastructure. And the rest of spending focused on protecting surface and sub sea economic assets in the Atlantic and North Sea.
A lot of that spending should go directly into joint ventures with Ukraine. They are developing drones far faster and more cheaply than the rest of us. And combat testing them in real time.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
Nothing you said back when he was in power turned out to be true; why should you be any less foolish now?
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
At a slightly less cerebral level Nige is suggesting that the swans and carp of the Royal Parks are being eaten. Which is, reportedly, news to the Royal Parks. He really does go full-on Trump when pressed.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
It is a side of the bus thing, or Trumpism, even going back to Bush's truthiness. If it has not happened in the Royal parks, it will have happened somewhere over the past few years. Heck, carp are often taken by birds and expensive koi carp by thieves for resale.
Farage being caught fudging the details or even making them up is not going to boost the LibDems.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
Sorry Matt but this just doesn't work. That ambiguity will just be used as an excuse by our leaders to never take the tough decision, as they have repeatedly over the last few weeks.
The idea that shooting a Russian plane down in NATO airspace is an escalation is just silly too. A like-for-like would putting an RAF Typhoon over the Finnish:Russian border.
Preferably Starmer et al make no statement at all and if it happens again there is no question about what happens.
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
In Ukraine they have 4 or 5 layers for different types of drone, whilst here I'm not aware of anything in service that is under about 50-100k per shot.
It will be a 2-5 year job, short of panic stations, to get anything serious in place. In most places we don't even have hardened aircraft shelters.
And I don't see any comms activity to start any conditioning of public opinions.
That's not actually true. Ukraine has quite a lot spare potential manufacturing capacity, but lacks the funding. They could ramp production very quickly with more money.
You're right that it will take years if we follow normal procurement rules.
Plans to extend high-speed rail across the north of England have been delayed further and will not now be announced by the prime minister at the Labour Party conference next week.
The BBC understands concerns over the long-term costs of the line earmarked between Liverpool and Manchester have pushed back the revival of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I can understand 55% of the general population not understanding this. But it’s a little alarming how many of the supposedly informed commentators on here are champing at the bit to begin a direct hot war with a nuclear state, for seemingly no good reason but ego.
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
Turkey shot down a Russian fighter plane in 2015 when it strayed across the border momentarily. Remind me how the consequent hot war between Russia and Turkey went.
If Estonia had the air defence systems which will be delivered next year, they would absolutely have shot down the Russian jets.
It's a more difficult decision for the visiting NATO jets, over foreign territory, which were operating under the existing NATO rules of engagement (which are in place for obvious reasons).
Following the incident, it's pretty likely that the rules of engagement while they remain in Estonia are going to be changed. If there's a next time, then it's quite likely the NATO jets will be more aggressive.
Putin needs an off-ramp for his disatrastrous Ukrainian adventure. The only one that saves his neck involves NATO getting involved directly.
Instead, we should say via backchannels that for every incursion we will quietly assist Ukraine in targetting Ukrainian missiles onto another plum Russian hydrocarbon asset. That way, every provocative incursion hastens the end of the Russian economy.
That doesn't work because we should be doing that anyway (and probably are).
Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by police for referring to herself as a “spaz”. Under the UK’s present government, this authoritarian nonsense is only going to get worse…"
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
No. The coinage and currency of the term "Boriswave" has finished him forever, politically. He should accept his fate and move on
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
Nick Ferrari took down Farage on LBC with a gotcha that has Farage pleading the 5th as far as Trump's link between Paracetamol/ Tylenol and autism is concerned. Farage even denied science by suggesting scientists didn't realise how dangerous Thalidomide was until we realised it was, implying Trump may have a point about Paracetamol. It has been the top story on LBC all day.
I was thus interested to see how BBC PM broached a clear error by Farage. The answer is it didn't. The story didn't make the programme, although they did find a New Statesman article that hints at a huge bust-up between Burnham and Starmer.
So Farage f**** up and the BBC bury it.
The Beeb seems to be paralysed. Rabbit meets cobra.
The BBC are playing the long game. If they can help engineer a right wing dictatorship, they will be the state broadcaster and all the other broadcasters will be closed down. The licence fee will be increased to £1,984 per year.
I think this may be the silliest comment I've ever read on PB, unless it's a joke.
"When Farage was asked if he would side with medical experts who say it is dangerous to make the link, he added: “I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right? You know? I don’t side with anybody, because science is never settled. We should remember that.”
I think (hope) this will become a real weakness. Drinking the RFK/Trump kool aid on health and medicine is not going to persuade many of the great British public of your prime ministerial credentials - at least, I hope not.
Hiding behind the obvious truth, at least to a philosopher of science who has read Hume and Popper, that science is never settled isn't good enough. It invites curiousity about whether the adult Farage has ever taken an antibiotic, had a flu or covid injection, acted on medical advice, been cautious about ingesting cyanide, relied on the physics by which areoplanes can fly (he has reasons for doubting that one), deiced a windscreen etc.
"The science on gravity isn't settled" Farage exclaimed as he walked out of a 10th storey window.
The unsettled nature of science is nicely disturbing in two quite different ways. It may well be - probably is - true that things tomorrow will generally fall downwards when you drop them; but it's also possible that the reason or explanation for this general truth is actually to do with the thoughts of the turtles that are holding up the corners of the earth who sustain the downwards movement by sheer willpower and Newton and Einstein are in egregious error. I hope someone is looking into it.
But worse still as SFAICS no refutation of this possibility is possible: We have no reason to know that the general laws governing the universe may not perform quite differently tomorrow since our knowledge of why the laws are exactly as they are and not otherwise and whether they could all change tomorrow, as opposed to what they are now, is precisely zero.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
No. The coinage and currency of the term "Boriswave" has finished him forever, politically. He should accept his fate and move on
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
No. The coinage and currency of the term "Boriswave" has finished him forever, politically. He should accept his fate and move on
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
Has it though? The MiC poll showed a Boris led Tories would get 26% ie mainly centre right voters not too bothered about immigration, even with Reform on 23% from those who hated the Boriswave and also ahead of Labour on 22%
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
It's not so simple, since waiting for them to get closer to large population centres means an increased likelihood of casualties in the ground.
Which would be embarrassing for whichever country's jets shot the Russians down.
I think Tallinn might be (relatively) straightforward - their airspace extends about 40% of the way across the Baltic, then a narrow international corridor, then Finnish airspace. They have perhaps 15 miles from Tallinn over the sea. It has bigger buffers on the landward side.
So give maybe around an undefined 1-2 miles of buffer, then shoot down over the sea, and the missile is flying away form population. But that's my naif thought.
I'd be interested to know what shoot down buffers for hijacked aircraft are around London (cf 9/11) if any. Is there a closeness to London where shoot down is excluded? Or do we not plan to that extent?
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
Nothing you said back when he was in power turned out to be true; why should you be any less foolish now?
I said he would beat Corbyn and get Brexit done, which he did, as he got the Covid vaccines done and aid to Ukraine done
Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by police for referring to herself as a “spaz”. Under the UK’s present government, this authoritarian nonsense is only going to get worse…"
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
No. The coinage and currency of the term "Boriswave" has finished him forever, politically. He should accept his fate and move on
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
About 8 people use the term "Boriswave".
Maybe 9.
None of them were voting Tory or Reform anyway.
Nope. Farage is the canniest politician in the country. And he used "Boriswave" explicitly in his Deportation speech. For a reason. People get it
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
You keep worshipping Charlie Kirk then. See where it gets you.
If Boris continues to attack Reform/Farage, I suspect that may have a minor negative impact on Reform's popularity. Quite a few Reform supporters think the world of Farage, but also think Boris walks on water (despite the Boriswave), and will be a bit torn.
Some truth in that, a MoreinCommon poll after the Local Elections found that only Boris could beat Farage of potential Tory leader alternatives to Kemi.
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
Bringing back Johnson would be as good for a drowning Tory party as a concrete lifebuoy.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Boris is the ONLY Tory leader who can win back significant Tory to Reform switchers from a Farage led Reform as that poll shows (a Sunak led Tories again would tie Reform but not lead Reform as a Boris led Tories would the poll found)
He won't ever be leader of the Conservative Party again.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
No. The coinage and currency of the term "Boriswave" has finished him forever, politically. He should accept his fate and move on
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
Has it though? The MiC poll showed a Boris led Tories would get 26% ie mainly centre right voters not too bothered about immigration, even with Reform on 23% from those who hated the Boriswave and also ahead of Labour on 22%
You have this love affair with Boris but he is not going to lead the conservative party
However, his public rejection of Farage is welcome, and to be honest this week has shown Farage in his true MAGA colours and any conservative who supports Farage is well gone from the party no matter the electoral consequences
Indeed I expect Dorries and Krugger are far from impressed
Drones yes should be shot down as Russian drones were when they entered Polish airspace. Aircraft though are normally escorted away rather than shot down to avoid further escalation
I'd favour rules of engagement around 'aircraft breaching NATO airspace are liable to being shot down".
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
You warn the Russian planes several times to leave NATO airspace, you try and escort them out, only if they still remain do you shoot them down.
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
In Ukraine they have 4 or 5 layers for different types of drone, whilst here I'm not aware of anything in service that is under about 50-100k per shot.
It will be a 2-5 year job, short of panic stations, to get anything serious in place. In most places we don't even have hardened aircraft shelters.
And I don't see any comms activity to start any conditioning of public opinions.
That's not actually true. Ukraine has quite a lot spare potential manufacturing capacity, but lacks the funding. They could ramp production very quickly with more money.
You're right that it will take years if we follow normal procurement rules.
To be clear, I'm talking about putting something in place here in the UK.
There are systems available and being developed, and bits and pieces are successfully testing.
I think the way it would go is that there will be a scare, and the politicians will suddenly wake up and listen to the warnings they are getting already.
One development we have seen recently has been a tightening up of drone registration and identifying beacon regulations. Auditors eg flying their drones inspecting Reg Nos of unmarked police cars and staff cars and publishing videos may be getting their wings clipped. It's background, but it takes out a lot of potential false positives.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
Nonsense
One person's interpretation of Christ's opinion can be challenged by another and certainly not blasphemous
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
Far-right, far-left - cut from the same cloth when it comes to blasphemy. There really is a woke right.
I really wish the British media would focus on the Russian shithousery than Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel.
In that context, it’s worth noting that Kirk called Zelensky (not Putin) a “petulant child” who was “responsible for a million deaths”.
In Kirk’s defence, while admitting it’s likely to be the worst thing he’s on record as saying, that was on the day of the first disasterous meeting between the two leaders in the White House, and he was joining in with a Twitter pile-on.
I’ll keep defending Charlie Kirk on here, because he was at his heart a good man who didn’t deserve to suffer his fate, and that if we were all to be judged by our worst online comments then the world would not be a better place.
What a bonkers excuse. "My mate Trump was also blaming Zelensky for all the death so Charlie was right to as well".
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said that it was unfortunate that he joined in the pile-on, and that he was a good man whose legacy shouldn’t be defined by the worst thing he ever wrote on Twitter.
"a good man"?
Nah. He was a racist, misogynistic shit who deserved to be shouted down, not shot up.
No, he really wasn’t. He was a Christian conservative youth leader, in favour of conversation with opponents, for which he was ultimately assasinated.
You'll never convince me he was remotely benign.
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
Who are you to say that.
Who are you to say I shouldn't?
I don't pretend to know what Christ would have thought.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
Is it really that difficult to put Christ's teaching besides Charlie Kirk's pronouncements - and come up with the view that Kirk had a racist, misogynistic credo that was entirely at odds with Christian principles? I don't think so.
You pretended to be able to know whether Christ would seen Charlie Kirk as a Christian.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
You keep worshipping Charlie Kirk then. See where it gets you.
Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by police for referring to herself as a “spaz”. Under the UK’s present government, this authoritarian nonsense is only going to get worse…"
Comments
Did you read the article? It doesn't aopear to be paywalled.
That the story doesn’t look good for the government (and particularly bad for the previous one, which left the, the problem) is hardly the reporter’s fault.
But it is a very clear demonstration that the right wing attacks on BBC reporting have little basis in fact.
Today, we're proud to launch Wilson to the world – your very own legal superagent. Think Cursor for legal contracts.
https://x.com/moondrencht/status/1970755020720070886
1. He's not an MP
2. He can't become an MP without contesting a by-election, and he's cowardly custard (understandably).
3. If he becomes an MP the existing MPs seem unlikely to say 'omg we've so been waiting for you'.
4. Fellow MPs are not his biggest hurdle.
5. He's completely useless
Apart from that he's almost nailed on as the next Jesus Christ.
(There is possibly a way where he could get elected Labour leader and then backdoor himself via the Lords. Or at least I think its just about plausible)
"The country has gone to the dogs!"
"We need more kids! There is a demographic crisis!"
"Career women have fewer kids!"
"Abortion is problematic!"
"My wife is a stay-at-home mom and is happy and contented."
"Birth control are causing the fish to become women!"
"Look at this woman who failed in this job!"
"Women are unhappier!"
etc.
All of these are arguable, and not, in their own way, bad. But put together, they create a message that is IMV dangerous. And that is the way intelligent people can word things. The trick is to keep individual statements just on the right side of acceptable and factual, whilst not saying your real message.
From The Guardian:
"Asked who was doing this, Farage said “people who come from countries where it’s quite acceptable to do so”. Asked if he meant eastern Europeans, he replied: “So I believe.”
Discuss.
And, whilst his ego might be stroked by all this "if only you were PM, Andy" stuff, why would he want the job? He'd rapidly be as hated as everyone else who has tried to run the country recently. The only question is whether he is being talked up out of desperation or boredom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9ev40C30M
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55580806
https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-denies-making-fun-of-donald-trump/
Boris has also dismissed Reform over their proposal to end the 2 child benefit cap which he says working families would have to pay for
A local delicacy
And it was YUMMY, I have no idea if they spent 4 hours tweezering all the bones out, but if they did it was worth it
Alleged human trafficking, rape, coercion of multiple victims and definitely toxic misogyny OK vs convicted sexual touching BAD?
All a bit confused amongst the ranks of professional racists at Marshall publications
It would just be taking the bait from a dictator who is desperate to escalate, to detract from his revanchist failure. Surprised so few here seem to realise that. They would do well to review the position in this war of the last US administration.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz03gjnxe25o
Would Jesus have counted him as one of his own? That's doubtful.
https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/us/charlie-kirk-backed-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-annexation-of-crimea-called-zelenskyy-a-cia-puppet-gets-a-makeshift-memorial-in-moscow/articleshow/123965319.cms
A Johnson led Conservative Party would be on 26% it found to 23% for Farage's Reform, 22% for Labour and 15% for the LDs (p48)
https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/rpahhzfk/more-in-common-post-election-briefing-3.pdf
Putin needs to understand that his drones and aircraft will be instantly shot down in NATO airspace
Some Baltic sea trials of the Ukranian sea drones as joint exercises perhaps too.
Probably still best not to walk out of 10th storey windows.
1) given the party system has fractured so much, broadcasters don’t have much to go on in terms of political balance/coverage rules for the new situation. This is leading to some parties getting more coverage than others for reasons, I imagine, that are coming down to the whims of editors and interpretation of vague guidelines. They really should be firmed up, but I suspect everyone is in a holding pattern, hoping that the situation might resolve itself and we get back to 2 party politics again.
2) the BBC I think are overcompensating somewhat for the fact that they are painfully aware that very few of their staff would even admit to knowing a Reform voter, let alone being one. That is not an ideal place to be, for a national broadcaster who is supposed to represent everyone. As a result, I suspect that there is a slight subconscious bias against going too hard on Reform, for fear of being seen to be a gang of out of touch liberal elites.
My view on the whole thing is regardless of the coverage, it’s incumbent on the other parties to explain how they will do better than Reform and why electing Reform is a bad idea, rather than getting dragged into debates about airtime/partiality. I think Davey has made an error on that front.
You do.
Don't be suprised if people call you out on it.
I think even Tories realise that he is yesterday's man.
Even if they'd got on like a house on fire, I can't either him or Farage being able to share the limelight, so it's one or the other.
Plans to extend high-speed rail across the north of England have been delayed further and will not now be announced by the prime minister at the Labour Party conference next week.
The BBC understands concerns over the long-term costs of the line earmarked between Liverpool and Manchester have pushed back the revival of Northern Powerhouse Rail.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckge94030g7o
Wonder what the King of North will have to say about this?
Ambiguity helps.
And then having a flexible guideline as to what is done. Russki plane a couple of km into Estonian airspace over the Baltic - usually OK. Russki plane getting close to Tallinn in suspicious circs - boom.
One drone problem is that NATO is short on cheap ways of shooting them down.
I think that LDs (and Greens too) putting down a few markers is not a bad thing.
I recognize you are of the view the removal of Boris Johnson by the Conservative Party was the biggest mistake made in the 2019-24 period but to have had Johnson lead your party into an election with all the baggage he had accumulated would likely have precipitated as great a disaster as befell the party under Sunak, if not greater.
The contrast in the behaviour of Johnson and Truss on the one hand and Sunak on the other is all too obvious.
Where have you been this last 12 months?
Extra NATO arms spending should fund anti drone missiles
I assume France isn't bothered about the what looks to be unfavourable trade on it's part as it'll just send them wherever or wait for them to head back on the dinghies; though I'd hope we'd be fingerprinting the "outs" for IMMEDIATE removal back to wherever if they come back in and match the fingerprint database.
It's a more difficult decision for the visiting NATO jets, over foreign territory, which were operating under the existing NATO rules of engagement (which are in place for obvious reasons).
Following the incident, it's pretty likely that the rules of engagement while they remain in Estonia are going to be changed.
If there's a next time, then it's quite likely the NATO jets will be more aggressive.
@andrewdoyle_com
Katie Hopkins has been interviewed by police for referring to herself as a “spaz”.
Under the UK’s present government, this authoritarian nonsense is only going to get worse…"
https://x.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1970738943873388655
Which would be embarrassing for whichever country's jets shot the Russians down.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/09/15/vance-defends-false-claims-about-immigrants-eating-cats-wanted-to-create-media-attention/
(In the USA the Democrats have pulled off the extraordinary stunt of failing to be box office even though they could be running the country well before Reform run the UK and are the only credible force to ward off a totalitarian state. How this state of insensate boringness can be achieved I have no idea. It must be hard.)
The big thing the BBC can do for its punters is to examine in critical detail but fairly Reform's policies, the gaps, the inconsistencies, the evasions, the fiscal implications, detailing the questions they don't want to answer especially about public services, debt, tax, deficit, employment, migration, separation of powers and so on. Of course they should be doing this for the government and Tories (not easy as they are all over the place) as well, and to be fair to some extent they do.
Instead, we should say via backchannels that for every incursion we will quietly assist Ukraine in targetting Ukrainian missiles onto another plum Russian hydrocarbon asset. That way, every provocative incursion hastens the end of the Russian economy.
It will be a 2-5 year job, short of panic stations, to get anything serious in place. In most places we don't even have hardened aircraft shelters.
And I don't see any comms activity to start any conditioning of public opinions.
They are developing drones far faster and more cheaply than the rest of us. And combat testing them in real time.
Farage being caught fudging the details or even making them up is not going to boost the LibDems.
The idea that shooting a Russian plane down in NATO airspace is an escalation is just silly too. A like-for-like would putting an RAF Typhoon over the Finnish:Russian border.
Preferably Starmer et al make no statement at all and if it happens again there is no question about what happens.
Ukraine has quite a lot spare potential manufacturing capacity, but lacks the funding. They could ramp production very quickly with more money.
You're right that it will take years if we follow normal procurement rules.
One of the main causes of increased costs for these projects is the continual delays.
He can still have a significant role as an influencer though. If he can ever see beyond "what's in it for me?"
He should also curse the guy on X that came up with it, As a result everyone know what happened and he will never be forgiven. This is why he is getting into strops about his time as PM, he knows he will go down in history for THIS, the Boriswave, and - as a vain man - he hates it. Tough shit. He did it
But worse still as SFAICS no refutation of this possibility is possible: We have no reason to know that the general laws governing the universe may not perform quite differently tomorrow since our knowledge of why the laws are exactly as they are and not otherwise and whether they could all change tomorrow, as opposed to what they are now, is precisely zero.
Maybe 9.
None of them were voting Tory or Reform anyway.
So give maybe around an undefined 1-2 miles of buffer, then shoot down over the sea, and the missile is flying away form population. But that's my naif thought.
I'd be interested to know what shoot down buffers for hijacked aircraft are around London (cf 9/11) if any. Is there a closeness to London where shoot down is excluded? Or do we not plan to that extent?
Vilnius might be a touch more difficult.
Deactivate Constable Cabbage.
That was a horrendous, indeed blasphemous, assumption that you should be ashamed to have made.
However, his public rejection of Farage is welcome, and to be honest this week has shown Farage in his true MAGA colours and any conservative who supports Farage is well gone from the party no matter the electoral consequences
Indeed I expect Dorries and Krugger are far from impressed
There are systems available and being developed, and bits and pieces are successfully testing.
I think the way it would go is that there will be a scare, and the politicians will suddenly wake up and listen to the warnings they are getting already.
One development we have seen recently has been a tightening up of drone registration and identifying beacon regulations. Auditors eg flying their drones inspecting Reg Nos of unmarked police cars and staff cars and publishing videos may be getting their wings clipped. It's background, but it takes out a lot of potential false positives.
One person's interpretation of Christ's opinion can be challenged by another and certainly not blasphemous
https://x.com/jkr_on_the_web/status/1970754325703004395?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
As in claiming that if their complaint isn’t taken seriously, they will push for legal review of the handling of the case.
Apparently, this has been behind a number of the more spurious sounding “investigated for hurty words on Twatter” thing, recently.