Of course there always is the possibility of scrutinising the Greens on policy. However the army of Reform social media seem to be focussed on the following instead.
Their candidate isn't the real candidate, it's an overweight trans woman with a record. She's married to a millionaire. She isn't a plumber really. She lives in Coventry. Has anyone checked if she has a willy?
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
It comes down to applying the same standards of ethics, morality, rewards and penalties at the top of organisations as we demand of the bottom.
We have, finally, moved to a world where senior NHS managers, who do things like conduct illegal campaigns of harassment against whistleblower, will be struck of the register and can't just *get another job as an NHS manager*. That's good. A start.
The case in point, today - Mandy - if a more junior person was being recruited, multiple resignations for ethics violations would make getting a job next to impossible.
For roles far below the level that Mandy was recruited for, the security services would build a life history detailing everything. I've had friends go for such jobs - got the calls from nice people asking about stuff 20 or 30 years back. Was this done? Who read the result, if it was?
It ought not to have taken a huge amount of digging.
It was fairly open knowledge that Mandelson maintained a relationship with Epstein post conviction. The Epstein plea bargain makes it very clear (on its first page) that he was guilty of rape and trafficking of children; the ridiculously lenient sentence doesn't obscure that.
Those two facts alone should have been put to the PM within a day, surely ? If they weren't, then Mandelson wasn't vetted at all.
Mandelson's insider trading as Business Secretary over land assets, leaking of Government email, advising JP Morgan to threaten Darling, and the payments are far more important than the salacious material.
This is pretty close to treason. Working with Epstein and JP Morgan to threaten Darling who is the C of E is astonishing.
I've heard stuff about Mandelson that would mean he should be nowhere near foreign office/ambassadorial matters. If I've heard them, how can Starmer not... Maybe its all bollocks, but my sources were pretty convincing.
It's another example of what has been a theme of the last year or so - political leaders dispensing with their ethics and better judgement in their attempts to 'manage' their relationship with Donald Trump.
How many of the senior people in charge at the Post Office when the wrongful prosecutions were happening -
•Adam Crozier, Royal Mail CEO 2003 – 2010 •Moya Greene, Royal Mail CEO 2010 – 2018 •David Mills, Post Office MD 2002 – 2005 •Alan Cook, Post Office MD 2006–2010 Or its Chair •Allan Leighton 2002 – 2009
have suffered any adverse consequences at all?
A big fat zero.
I'm convinced that one of the issues was that Horizon was meant to trap those on the fiddle, who the NU10K believed to be legion, and lo! it did. So I think they mostly just assumed that they were finally getting the thieving little scrotes.
And no-one reads Private Eye any more, especially after Wakefield. So who cares if the odd postmaster claims the software is faulty? Get an expert to say it isn't.
Not sure about that
"Private Eye remains the best-selling news magazine in the UK with an average of 231,315 sales per fortnight, but this figure was down 6% year on year"
Yep - I read private eye, unlike the Economist, it’s reporting gossip so I don’t take what is written as gospel so which I haven’t bought the Economist for 30 years private eye is something I open and read
What I want to know is this: when did US intelligence become aware of the Mandelson revelations, did they inform their British counterparts and if so when?
That depends whether Epstein was working for the CIA (or KGB or Mossad).
Or in fact all 3.
I don't understand the existence of all the photographs. The fact that taking pictures seems to have been normalised is utterly bizarre unless it was deliberate collection of kompromat.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
The Royal Navy’s blockade was grinding down Germany’s economy, above all, oil and petroleum imports.
It was one of the factors that drove Barbarossa.
Although the weird thing about Hitler's desire to solve his economic woes is that beyond stating 'I must get my hands on the oil' there was nothing in place to actually generate and deliver the oil if captured. I think Barbarossa being launched in 1941 was a response to many things, not least massive hubris after the way that Poland and France etc had gone. All Hitler's wildest fantasies about reversing the WW1 outcomes coming true and a seemingly invincible army. Add in the time factor (he want to do it before he was too old) and the damage that had been done internally with the purges of the Red Army and I think that many foolishly believed it would be quickly over. That Russia is vast, where France is not didn't seem to occur. And then the treatment of the newly won territory - arriving as overthrowing communism could have had Ukranians, Latvians, Lithuanians etc onside. A more cynical Nazi leadership could have done that.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
To be fair, some at least of this country's problems are down to a woman....... Margaret Thatcher.
Started by Thatcher and continued & expanded by Blair. And now Starmer & Reeves want to repeat the mistake re the City because in the intervening 30 years no-one has come up with any new thinking.
Yes, I recall that, and agree entirely. I've been banging on about the toxic parts of Thatcher's legacy in other areas for even longer.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
How many of the senior people in charge at the Post Office when the wrongful prosecutions were happening -
•Adam Crozier, Royal Mail CEO 2003 – 2010 •Moya Greene, Royal Mail CEO 2010 – 2018 •David Mills, Post Office MD 2002 – 2005 •Alan Cook, Post Office MD 2006–2010 Or its Chair •Allan Leighton 2002 – 2009
have suffered any adverse consequences at all?
A big fat zero.
I'm convinced that one of the issues was that Horizon was meant to trap those on the fiddle, who the NU10K believed to be legion, and lo! it did. So I think they mostly just assumed that they were finally getting the thieving little scrotes.
And no-one reads Private Eye any more, especially after Wakefield. So who cares if the odd postmaster claims the software is faulty? Get an expert to say it isn't.
Not sure about that
"Private Eye remains the best-selling news magazine in the UK with an average of 231,315 sales per fortnight, but this figure was down 6% year on year"
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Worse. He was lobbying not for a client but for his own personal interests.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
In my experience, people who want to do away with civil servants are also the kind of people who complain if they can't get through to someone from HMRC on the phone. The vast majority of civil servants work for moderate wages to try and deliver the public services that everyone else takes for granted. Perhaps you mean just the permanent secretaries and Non Execs?
How many Permanent Secretaries visited Epstein Island? How many are mentioned in the files?
It's quite a leap.
How many permanent secretaries covered up for those who did visit the island? Not such a big leap, is it?
Just think it's quite funny it took you two comments to find the real villains of the piece. Plenty of problems with the civil service but I'm not convinced Epstein is a big one.
Or maybe that's just what you decided to pick out of what I said? I pointed to a class of unaccountable and untouchable politicians, civil servants and executives. That you seem to have latched on to just one of the three groups is on you, not me.
I think a big part of the problem is labelling those who disagree with them as racists, thickos, lazy, uneducated etc. It enrages people.
Actually, scratch that: a massive part.
This is precisely what every government from 1997 to 2016 did.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
Dieppe taught the UK (and by extension the US) what they needed to know about invasions. Hence the D-Day plans and Hobart's Funnies, Pluto and Mulberry.
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
I don’t think most voters in Gorton & Denton would draw a distinction like that!
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
To be fair, some at least of this country's problems are down to a woman....... Margaret Thatcher.
Started by Thatcher and continued & expanded by Blair. And now Starmer & Reeves want to repeat the mistake re the City because in the intervening 30 years no-one has come up with any new thinking.
Yes, I recall that, and agree entirely. I've been banging on about the toxic parts of Thatcher's legacy in other areas for even longer.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
To me, that is a key difference between a centrist and a partisan. Too many people think the answer is always more tax and spend or always less tax and spend. If it was that easy it would be really easy. Different times call for different approaches, we need to use the toolkits of both left and right from time to time.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
To be fair, some at least of this country's problems are down to a woman....... Margaret Thatcher.
Started by Thatcher and continued & expanded by Blair. And now Starmer & Reeves want to repeat the mistake re the City because in the intervening 30 years no-one has come up with any new thinking.
Yes, I recall that, and agree entirely. I've been banging on about the toxic parts of Thatcher's legacy in other areas for even longer.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
To me, that is a key difference between a centrist and a partisan. Too many people think the answer is always more tax and spend or always less tax and spend. If it was that easy it would be really easy. Different times call for different approaches, we need to use the toolkits of both left and right from time to time.
And preferably in a 'smug and self-satisfied' way. That gets the best results.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
To be fair, some at least of this country's problems are down to a woman....... Margaret Thatcher.
Started by Thatcher and continued & expanded by Blair. And now Starmer & Reeves want to repeat the mistake re the City because in the intervening 30 years no-one has come up with any new thinking.
Yes, I recall that, and agree entirely. I've been banging on about the toxic parts of Thatcher's legacy in other areas for even longer.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
To me, that is a key difference between a centrist and a partisan. Too many people think the answer is always more tax and spend or always less tax and spend. If it was that easy it would be really easy. Different times call for different approaches, we need to use the toolkits of both left and right from time to time.
Can a toolmaker's son not get some toolkits for this?
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
I don’t think most voters in Gorton & Denton would draw a distinction like that!
But I think politicians on the Left would so they won't challenge it.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Wonder what Gordon Brown makes of it all. Has he been asked? Mandelson, by all accounts, was effectively running the government during periods of Brown's ministry.
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
But not Boris Johnson attending KGB parties in Italy as Foreign Secretary and putting the son of the same KGB Grandee in the HoL.
I agree that Mandelson is worse than Johnson - not merely because he has now been caught three times! However, Johnson was not sacked because he ate cake. He was sacked because he too the p~ss out of everyone, including his supposed colleagues, and he deserved all he got
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
If I had the answer I'd be trying to do something about it. I have done my bit trying to change the culture within the places I've worked. Though the chances of anyone in politics listening to an old woman about anything approximate to zero, as I have been saying for years.
Why do you think it has taken this long to listen to what women have been saying about this? Or why women are not listened to on any other topic affecting them? This forum has not been innocent in that regard either.
Reform is part of the same rotten cabal not a fresh broom. The Greens are batshit insane, have little regard for the law and view women as second class citizens not entitled to their rights. Their leader - who has never taken drink or drugs - decided, while stone cold sober, that he could use hypnosis to enlarge their breasts. This is nota serious person. The Tories are boneless.
The chances of change being for the better are not high. I am not optimistic. Labour could have started the process but with a leader steeped in disingenuousness, dishonesty and a joyless illiberal authoritarianism and lacking judgment or, seemingly, any feel for the country he governs, it has missed its chance - and may have made matters worse.
To be fair, some at least of this country's problems are down to a woman....... Margaret Thatcher.
Started by Thatcher and continued & expanded by Blair. And now Starmer & Reeves want to repeat the mistake re the City because in the intervening 30 years no-one has come up with any new thinking.
Yes, I recall that, and agree entirely. I've been banging on about the toxic parts of Thatcher's legacy in other areas for even longer.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
Yes, absolutely. Alongside that, things like utility privatisation and government centralisation weren't even good things in the first place..
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."
Interesting question (well to me) - would they have nuked Berlin? Why didn't they nuke Tokyo?
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."
Interesting question (well to me) - would they have nuked Berlin? Why didn't they nuke Tokyo?
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Wonder what Gordon Brown makes of it all. Has he been asked? Mandelson, by all accounts, was effectively running the government during periods of Brown's ministry.
In one of the emails he says he can’t come to New York until Gordon Brown can be trusted not to have a breakdown.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Earlier today we saw the damning email but couldn’t 100% confirm who it came from (albeit it was obvious).
The reply gave the game away and I think confirms the Official Secrets Act was broken
Alarmingly, broken by a Top Minister fifteen years ago, and we're only finding out now.
What other Bad Shit is happening without anyone noticing?
I suspect this type of abuse by the rich and powerful goes on now and always has done. The Epstein emails were uncovered because in the 2000's and 2010's the rich and powerful unguardedly emailed to each other, not realising the email server was capturing every communication. It was a point in time weakness. In the 1990's they would have phoned; post 2015 they would have Whatsapp'ed. And no-one would be any the wiser.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."
Interesting question (well to me) - would they have nuked Berlin? Why didn't they nuke Tokyo?
They didn’t nuke Tokyo because it had already been extensively bombed and destroyed by subsequent firestorms. They wanted to see the effects, and have the effects be seen, of bombing somewhere that had been left relatively unscathed before then.
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
OTOH, had the Germans landed and lost the western Allies may have been more pessimistic about their own seaborne invasions and we could have held back on D-Day until '45 or '46.
IN 45 or 46 the communists would have been in Paris...
Unless Hitler put of Barbarossa until later, and then, and then...
The forecast for Berlin, August 1945 in that scenario - "Very bright, with daytime temperatures reaching 10 million degrees. Wind gusts of up to Mach 2."
Interesting question (well to me) - would they have nuked Berlin? Why didn't they nuke Tokyo?
Opinion was divided - bombing Berlin was thought to be difficult, since the German air force was still a factor. See the losses. While a B29 would be higher and faster than a B17, it would be one of a handful of planes, unless the US 8th Airforce converted to B29s. And that had a whole host of problems.
The alternative was a target like Kiel - something near or on the seacoast.
With Japan, the issue was doing damage - Tokyo was a ruin already (much worse than Berlin would ever be) - and it was thought that killing the Emperor would cause the Japanese to go berserk and literally fight to the death.
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
UCAS wouldn't classify him as a first gen student see If neither of a student’s parents or carers attended university or completed a degree, they are usually considered to be ‘first-generation’.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Earlier today we saw the damning email but couldn’t 100% confirm who it came from (albeit it was obvious).
The reply gave the game away and I think confirms the Official Secrets Act was broken
Alarmingly, broken by a Top Minister fifteen years ago, and we're only finding out now.
What other Bad Shit is happening without anyone noticing?
I suspect this type of abuse by the rich and powerful goes on now and always has done. The Epstein emails were uncovered because in the 2000's and 2010's the rich and powerful unguardedly emailed to each other, not realising the email server was capturing every communication. It was a point in time weakness. In the 1990's they would have phoned; post 2015 they would have Whatsapp'ed. And no-one would be any the wiser.
Consider the Reformation.
Consider the savage hatred of the existing church by a number of Protestants. And the accounts of what was going on in the monasteries in England - that were destroyed on the orders of Queen Mary. Add in the fact that a major reason for the Reformation was the extra-judicial privileges of the clergy. They were legally untouchable by the civil courts. Add in the modern scandals. Add in the fact that human nature has not changed.
What I want to know is this: when did US intelligence become aware of the Mandelson revelations, did they inform their British counterparts and if so when?
That depends whether Epstein was working for the CIA (or KGB or Mossad).
Or in fact all 3.
I don't understand the existence of all the photographs. The fact that taking pictures seems to have been normalised is utterly bizarre unless it was deliberate collection of kompromat.
People (conveniently in some cases) forget that the past is a different world, and shagging teenagers would have been one of the main reasons to be a billionaire back then (still is in some parts of the world). For Andrew it would just have been an innocent holiday snap. Bet there's hundreds more *popcorn emoji*
Meanwhile, Jimmy Page remains a national treasure.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
'Untouchable and above the law'. We live in a country which recognises the separation of powers as between executive, legislature and judiciary/law enforcement. We see in the USA very clearly what is happening when this is dissolved in corruption.
No-one from you local shop lifter up to the very top wishes to be found out and made liable in any way for what they do wrong. I don't. If I park for 10 minutes without paying I like to get away with it.
The only bodies on earth that can enforce the genuine separation of powers in respect of calling the most powerful to account are the law enforcement agencies, police and others, CPS, lawyers and the courts. If they don't do it, no-one can. If they don't do it, we like the USA don't have a genuine separation of powers.
There is, human nature being what it is, no chance that the executive and legislature will act to put this right as against itself. The use of powers already existing is the only way to render those 'untouchable and above the law' properly accountable.
What about doing things that are not illegal, but purely incompetent? "Untouchable" is more than just apparent legal immunity.
How do we stop people failing upwards?
No quick answers of course, but running things competently as opposed to lawfully, in the public realm, ultimately are matters where accountability is to elected politicians and those to whom they delegate the tasks. In the private realm it is a matter for private civil law and the power of free markets and competition.
What doesn't work is keeping on trying to find alternatives to the fundamental separation of powers, each doing their job properly. There isn't some other theory that works better.
Maybe the best result for Matthew Goodwin would be to get within a handful of votes of winning without actually doing so. Why? Because Gorton & Denton will almost certainly not be won by Reform UK at the general election even if they win it overall with a majority, which means he would be out of parliament just when they enter government.
Off now but just had a bet on McLaren to win the Constructors' at 5.1 on Betfair. Not much there (maybe a bit at 5) but the odds of 3 on Ladbrokes seem rather more in tune with their chances.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Earlier today we saw the damning email but couldn’t 100% confirm who it came from (albeit it was obvious).
The reply gave the game away and I think confirms the Official Secrets Act was broken
Alarmingly, broken by a Top Minister fifteen years ago, and we're only finding out now.
What other Bad Shit is happening without anyone noticing?
I suspect this type of abuse by the rich and powerful goes on now and always has done. The Epstein emails were uncovered because in the 2000's and 2010's the rich and powerful unguardedly emailed to each other, not realising the email server was capturing every communication. It was a point in time weakness. In the 1990's they would have phoned; post 2015 they would have Whatsapp'ed. And no-one would be any the wiser.
Maybe the best result for Matthew Goodwin would be to get within a handful of votes of winning without actually doing so. Why? Because Gorton & Denton will almost certainly not be won by Reform UK at the general election even if they win it overall with a majority, which means he would be out of parliament just when they enter government.
No, as he would then be consigned by Farage to Reform No Man's land, limited to standing in the likes of Islington and Cambridge and other no hope seats for Reformers and that is it.
It might be better for Starmer though if Goodwin scrapes home with Labour a close second and the Greens third and with Labour and the Greens combined well over 50% as that would help him squeeze back the Greens vote
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Wonder what Gordon Brown makes of it all. Has he been asked? Mandelson, by all accounts, was effectively running the government during periods of Brown's ministry.
In one of the emails he says he can’t come to New York until Gordon Brown can be trusted not to have a breakdown.
Do you want him punished for his treachery towards Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling or his treachery towards the nation? Or both.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
In my experience, people who want to do away with civil servants are also the kind of people who complain if they can't get through to someone from HMRC on the phone. The vast majority of civil servants work for moderate wages to try and deliver the public services that everyone else takes for granted. Perhaps you mean just the permanent secretaries and Non Execs?
How many Permanent Secretaries visited Epstein Island? How many are mentioned in the files?
It's quite a leap.
How many permanent secretaries covered up for those who did visit the island? Not such a big leap, is it?
Just think it's quite funny it took you two comments to find the real villains of the piece. Plenty of problems with the civil service but I'm not convinced Epstein is a big one.
Or maybe that's just what you decided to pick out of what I said? I pointed to a class of unaccountable and untouchable politicians, civil servants and executives. That you seem to have latched on to just one of the three groups is on you, not me.
I think a big part of the problem is labelling those who disagree with them as racists, thickos, lazy, uneducated etc. It enrages people.
Actually, scratch that: a massive part.
That lesson should have been learned by all the politicans in 2016.
Calling voters a basket of deplorables isn’t going to win you an election.
Sure have a go at the political on the other side, but don’t dare have a go at those who might vote for them.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Earlier today we saw the damning email but couldn’t 100% confirm who it came from (albeit it was obvious).
The reply gave the game away and I think confirms the Official Secrets Act was broken
Alarmingly, broken by a Top Minister fifteen years ago, and we're only finding out now.
What other Bad Shit is happening without anyone noticing?
I suspect this type of abuse by the rich and powerful goes on now and always has done. The Epstein emails were uncovered because in the 2000's and 2010's the rich and powerful unguardedly emailed to each other, not realising the email server was capturing every communication. It was a point in time weakness. In the 1990's they would have phoned; post 2015 they would have Whatsapp'ed. And no-one would be any the wiser.
Consider the Reformation.
Consider the savage hatred of the existing church by a number of Protestants. And the accounts of what was going on in the monasteries in England - that were destroyed on the orders of Queen Mary. Add in the fact that a major reason for the Reformation was the extra-judicial privileges of the clergy. They were legally untouchable by the civil courts. Add in the modern scandals. Add in the fact that human nature has not changed.
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
In my experience, people who want to do away with civil servants are also the kind of people who complain if they can't get through to someone from HMRC on the phone. The vast majority of civil servants work for moderate wages to try and deliver the public services that everyone else takes for granted. Perhaps you mean just the permanent secretaries and Non Execs?
How many Permanent Secretaries visited Epstein Island? How many are mentioned in the files?
It's quite a leap.
How many permanent secretaries covered up for those who did visit the island? Not such a big leap, is it?
Just think it's quite funny it took you two comments to find the real villains of the piece. Plenty of problems with the civil service but I'm not convinced Epstein is a big one.
Or maybe that's just what you decided to pick out of what I said? I pointed to a class of unaccountable and untouchable politicians, civil servants and executives. That you seem to have latched on to just one of the three groups is on you, not me.
I think a big part of the problem is labelling those who disagree with them as racists, thickos, lazy, uneducated etc. It enrages people.
Actually, scratch that: a massive part.
That lesson should have been learned by all the politicans in 2016.
Calling voters a basket of deplorables isn’t going to win you an election.
Sure have a go at the political on the other side, but don’t dare have a go at those who might vote for them.
They should absolutely use that phrase - to describe the administration.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Some of those emails appear to have been sent to a personal email address and forwarded on from there.
Why were they not caught by any half-way IT system? This is basic stuff. Utterly negligent if government IT systems allowed emails to be sent out like this.
Every big company IT will have a list of their staff personal email addresses (from HR department) on a watchlist.
People emailing stuff from work to themselves outside is a massive red flag. At least it should be.
Yes the admin is going to spend loads of time looking at flight and hotel bookings, but also stuff that should never get out.
@Steven_Swinford The Lib Dems have become the first party to call for Lord Mandelson to face an investigation for misconduct in public office - a criminal offence - over the leaking of sensitive No 10 emails
Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader, says: 'The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the Government to lower its tax bill
'These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office.'
What I want to know is this: when did US intelligence become aware of the Mandelson revelations, did they inform their British counterparts and if so when?
That depends whether Epstein was working for the CIA (or KGB or Mossad).
Most likely all three.
I suspect Mossad without doubt and the KGB, most probably. On one of those counts the Trump-Epstein Venn diagram most likely dissects. And I don't believe the word in question starts with a letter between L and N.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Some of those emails appear to have been sent to a personal email address and forwarded on from there.
Why were they not caught by any half-way IT system? This is basic stuff. Utterly negligent if government IT systems allowed emails to be sent out like this.
Every big company IT will have a list of their staff personal email addresses (from HR department) on a watchlist.
People emailing stuff from work to themselves outside is a massive red flag. At least it should be.
Yes the admin is going to spend loads of time looking at flight and hotel bookings, but also stuff that should never get out.
Big big boss though - so different rules may be being applied
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
UCAS wouldn't classify him as a first gen student see If neither of a student’s parents or carers attended university or completed a degree, they are usually considered to be ‘first-generation’.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
Wikipedia (not me!) has removed the text in his article saying he's the first in his family to go.
Staggering to see emails suggest Mandelson advised JP Morgan’s Dimon via Epstein to “mildly threaten” Cabinet colleague Alastair Darling over banker bonus tax.
The Dimon call DID happen, Darling told me about it, including apparent threat to shun gilts & re HQ…
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Wonder what Gordon Brown makes of it all. Has he been asked? Mandelson, by all accounts, was effectively running the government during periods of Brown's ministry.
In one of the emails he says he can’t come to New York until Gordon Brown can be trusted not to have a breakdown.
This one? I'm not certain the Brown part of that mail is the damming part of that mail...
... When did Sterling lose it 'reserve currency' crown to the US? And how long did the switch take?
I think it was the first half of the 20th century, but where within that I don't know.
[EDIT: If you want a single year, Perplexity.ai says Bretton Woods in 1944, but the loss of reserve currency status was a process not an event and stretched from 1930s devaluations, 1944 Bretton Woods, 1971 Nixon Shock, through to 1972–1973 shift to floating exchange rates]
Two word answer: Bretton Woods.
Edit: your edit hit first.
Or three - World War Two.
To win WW2, the British Empire liquidated its entire gold reserves, those who understand know what that means, it essentially means you are mortgaging your entire nation and empire.
This, in the long term lost Britain its empire, bankrupted its people and led to the only recourse being a post-war loan from the USA to just continue existence which was only paid off in 2006. ...
We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be.
Counterfactuals are a waste of time, but...
If Halifax had had his way, a compromised peace with Hitler agreed, could the Nazis have beaten the USSR? Arguably the failings of Barbarossa would have occurred in any campaign into the East - the extreme distances, the ability of the USSR to move its production beyond the Urals, the sheer size of the USSR man-power pool, its industrial capacity, the lack of roads, the weather etc. Its hard to argue that the UK had much impact on the outcome in 1941 (a few pin prick air raids, the distraction in Africa, the delay in Greece notwithstanding).
Without Britain, as you say, the Nazis would have slugged it out across Europe and one way or another, would have been left under totalitarian dictatorships. There would have been no unsinkable aircraft carrier from which America could liberate Europe. Probably no convoys of British and American military aid to Stalin. No inspiration, arming and coordination of resistance movements across Europe.
So the key battle of ww2 was not Midway or Moscow or Stalingrad or El Alamein. The battle from which all else flowed was the Battle of Britain.
There is certainly a strong argument for that. I would counter thought that the Nazis would have struggled to land and support enough troops and material in face of the Royal Navy. You only need to look at how hard D-Day was and the scale that it needed, and compare with the hare-brained German plan of Rhine-barges heavily laden across the notoriously tricky channel. Now imagine trying to do that with the Home fleet in attendance?
A lot of the mythology of the second world war is wrong. I don't think Churchill believed Hitler would be able to invade. Certainly after the battle of Britain there was very little threat of an actual German invasion anymore, and arguably it was never a genuine threat.
I read Evans's trilogy just recently, and he argues that the Germans never really intended or wanted to invade Britain; they wanted a deal that would give them a free hand in Europe in return for leaving Britain with its empire. After France fell, they expected Britain to settle (as indeed a good chunk of the Tory party was willing to do), and expected the same had they defeated the RAF, and were expecting the same when they'd dealt with the USSR. That Britain refused to come to terms despite facing obvious doom had them stumped and eventually foxed. Paraphrasing heavily, obvs
WSJ: There is a whistleblower complaint against Tulsi Gabbard that is so sensitive that it is "said to be locked in a safe," and the administration has spent months trying to figure out how inform Congress https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/2018300123017605588
"How not to inform" would likely be more accurate.
Despite Polanski and Greens being as unsuitable for government as Farage I would vote Green just to hope Reform do not win
That is an appallingly irresponsible attitude. Reform are roughly a political match for the Tories in 1997. The Greens want to see an end to property rental, an end to the nuclear deterrent, the decriminalisation of all hard drugs, and potentially the abolition of the police force.
I would hope that if you were ever given a real choice between the two, a more sober judgement would prevail over petty political point-scoring.
I utterly reject the Goodwiln - Robinson - Farage Trump tribute act and would vote for anyone best to beat them
They are nothing like the 1997 conservatives nor the party I have supported for over 60 years
Adding deliberate misrepresentation on top of foolish, petty irresponsibility is not your finest hour.
I detest centrism and all its works, and believe Starmer has the foot on the accelerator of our national decline. However, I would vote for him a thousand times over Zack Polanski. To do otherwise would be a despicable dereliction of duty.
@Steven_Swinford The Lib Dems have become the first party to call for Lord Mandelson to face an investigation for misconduct in public office - a criminal offence - over the leaking of sensitive No 10 emails
Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader, says: 'The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the Government to lower its tax bill
'These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office.'
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
UCAS wouldn't classify him as a first gen student see If neither of a student’s parents or carers attended university or completed a degree, they are usually considered to be ‘first-generation’.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
Whether or not the deeply unpleasant racist Goodwin has airbrushed the details as to whether he was the first University graduate from his family is irrelevant in any discussion on the deeply unpleasant racist's suitability to be an MP.
@Steven_Swinford The Lib Dems have become the first party to call for Lord Mandelson to face an investigation for misconduct in public office - a criminal offence - over the leaking of sensitive No 10 emails
Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader, says: 'The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the Government to lower its tax bill
'These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office.'
Despite Polanski and Greens being as unsuitable for government as Farage I would vote Green just to hope Reform do not win
That is an appallingly irresponsible attitude. Reform are roughly a political match for the Tories in 1997. The Greens want to see an end to property rental, an end to the nuclear deterrent, the decriminalisation of all hard drugs, and potentially the abolition of the police force.
I would hope that if you were ever given a real choice between the two, a more sober judgement would prevail over petty political point-scoring.
I utterly reject the Goodwiln - Robinson - Farage Trump tribute act and would vote for anyone best to beat them
They are nothing like the 1997 conservatives nor the party I have supported for over 60 years
Adding deliberate misrepresentation on top of foolish, petty irresponsibility is not your finest hour.
I detest centrism and all its works, and believe Starmer has the foot on the accelerator of our national decline. However, I would vote for him a thousand times over Zack Polanski. To do otherwise would be a despicable dereliction of duty.
What misrepresentation? You said, "Reform are roughly a political match for the Tories in 1997." Big G said, "They are nothing like the 1997 conservatives".
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
UCAS wouldn't classify him as a first gen student see If neither of a student’s parents or carers attended university or completed a degree, they are usually considered to be ‘first-generation’.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
Whether or not the deeply unpleasant racist Goodwin has airbrushed the details as to whether he was the first University graduate from his family is irrelevant in any discussion on the deeply unpleasant racist's suitability to be an MP.
If someone lies about one thing, they're more likely to lie about other things.
A good principle of sending any email is that it will get back to the people you'd least like to see it, and thus should be phrased accordingly.
Some of those emails appear to have been sent to a personal email address and forwarded on from there.
Why were they not caught by any half-way IT system? This is basic stuff. Utterly negligent if government IT systems allowed emails to be sent out like this.
Every big company IT will have a list of their staff personal email addresses (from HR department) on a watchlist.
People emailing stuff from work to themselves outside is a massive red flag. At least it should be.
Yes the admin is going to spend loads of time looking at flight and hotel bookings, but also stuff that should never get out.
Big big boss though - so different rules may be being applied
Not in government. You should have an MI5 guy as the mail collector admin, who reports anything suspicious straight up the line in writing.
Mandelson would have been in very big trouble if this had been spotted at the time, and been escalated to FS and PM in a timely manner.
Remember nobody knew anything about Mandy's connection to Epstein, its all a total surprise hence why he was cleared to be Ambassador. If that is true, I think our security services need some serious ass whopping or perhaps some people might being forgetful.
Despite Polanski and Greens being as unsuitable for government as Farage I would vote Green just to hope Reform do not win
That is an appallingly irresponsible attitude. Reform are roughly a political match for the Tories in 1997. The Greens want to see an end to property rental, an end to the nuclear deterrent, the decriminalisation of all hard drugs, and potentially the abolition of the police force.
I would hope that if you were ever given a real choice between the two, a more sober judgement would prevail over petty political point-scoring.
I utterly reject the Goodwiln - Robinson - Farage Trump tribute act and would vote for anyone best to beat them
They are nothing like the 1997 conservatives nor the party I have supported for over 60 years
Adding deliberate misrepresentation on top of foolish, petty irresponsibility is not your finest hour.
I detest centrism and all its works, and believe Starmer has the foot on the accelerator of our national decline. However, I would vote for him a thousand times over Zack Polanski. To do otherwise would be a despicable dereliction of duty.
WSJ: There is a whistleblower complaint against Tulsi Gabbard that is so sensitive that it is "said to be locked in a safe," and the administration has spent months trying to figure out how inform Congress https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/2018300123017605588
"How not to inform" would likely be more accurate.
The whistleblower’s lawyer, Andrew Bakaj, has accused Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint; her office has rejected that claim and said it is working to resolve the issue.
The complaint was filed last May with the intelligence community’s inspector general, WSJ reported in its description of a November letter to Gabbard from Bakaj. It’s understood to also implicate another federal agency and to raise potential claims of executive privilege, suggesting possible White House involvement.
So, Matt Goodwin says he’s the first person in his direct family to go to university, but his dad has an MBA and a PhD. His dad did the MBA as a mature student when little Matt was 3, before his parents divorced. Is this a lie then?
We’ve talked about this before, but I’m surprised one of the other parties or a friendly journalist hasn’t made more of this!
Mature student with distance learning? Versus 18 year old on campus?
UCAS wouldn't classify him as a first gen student see If neither of a student’s parents or carers attended university or completed a degree, they are usually considered to be ‘first-generation’.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
Whether or not the deeply unpleasant racist Goodwin has airbrushed the details as to whether he was the first University graduate from his family is irrelevant in any discussion on the deeply unpleasant racist's suitability to be an MP.
If someone lies about one thing, they're more likely to lie about other things.
FON have polled everyone who cares about who went to university first and there are only 43 of them. There's more voters worried that all graduates are soft southerners.
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Worse. He was lobbying not for a client but for his own personal interests.
I don't want to provide any comfort for Mandelson but Bastani, not being very bright, and our own mischievous William Glen offer a faux equivalence. Being a potential traitor to the nation of course is far more serious than "being ambushed by a cake", which is why I have offered the KGB party example as an equally vile and despicable act of potential treachery.
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
Despite Polanski and Greens being as unsuitable for government as Farage I would vote Green just to hope Reform do not win
That is an appallingly irresponsible attitude. Reform are roughly a political match for the Tories in 1997. The Greens want to see an end to property rental, an end to the nuclear deterrent, the decriminalisation of all hard drugs, and potentially the abolition of the police force.
I would hope that if you were ever given a real choice between the two, a more sober judgement would prevail over petty political point-scoring.
I utterly reject the Goodwiln - Robinson - Farage Trump tribute act and would vote for anyone best to beat them
They are nothing like the 1997 conservatives nor the party I have supported for over 60 years
Adding deliberate misrepresentation on top of foolish, petty irresponsibility is not your finest hour.
I detest centrism and all its works, and believe Starmer has the foot on the accelerator of our national decline. However, I would vote for him a thousand times over Zack Polanski. To do otherwise would be a despicable dereliction of duty.
Is "Centrism" short for "people I disagree with"?
What @Luckyguy1983 misses is my utter distaste for Reform leads me to vote for the best candidate to beat them
Voting Green is no different to my vote for Plaid in May to have the same effect
In Green there is no danger of them winning a GE, and Plaid is the party for Wales
Just so we’re clear: significantly worse than Boris Johnson eating cake during lockdown. This is a guy acting like a lobbyist, while at the heart of government.
Worse. He was lobbying not for a client but for his own personal interests.
I don't want to provide any comfort for Mandelson but Bastani, not being very bright, and our own mischievous William Glen offer a faux equivalence. Being a potential traitor to the nation of course is far more serious than "being ambushed by a cake", which is why I have offered the KGB party example as an equally vile and despicable act of treachery.
The cake incident was also the least of what happened with Partygate, what with hours long parties in No. 10 into the early hours and Johnson lying to Parliament.
The heart of the matter, hence Mandy, Trump and all the rest of them:
I think "meaningfully need more power or money" is the key. My experience with rich/powerful people, men especially, is they always want more. It's their dopamine drip.
1 This is why making individual power or wealth limitless is probably a bad idea.
2 We know that each extra pound of wealth has a reducing gain in happiness; you need more £££ for each extra unit of joy. Does the same happen with power?
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
Starmer's poor judgement is in this instance beyond question. I am imagining a shouty, angry Badenoch grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. Best just to let Sir Ed rip out Starmer's jugular.
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
Got to say I do rather like Schwerbelastungskörper - I encountered it on a walk back to my hotel and you look at it celebrating a victory over Denmark and go hang on. Celebrating what???
🚨BREAKING - Gordon Brown says he has asked the Cabinet Secretary "to investigate the disclosure of confidential and market sensitive information" allegedly from Mandelson
Says he asked the cabinet office to investigate this in September and department found no record.
The heart of the matter, hence Mandy, Trump and all the rest of them:
I think "meaningfully need more power or money" is the key. My experience with rich/powerful people, men especially, is they always want more. It's their dopamine drip.
1 This is why making individual power or wealth limitless is probably a bad idea.
2 We know that each extra pound of wealth has a reducing gain in happiness; you need more £££ for each extra unit of joy. Does the same happen with power?
It’s been said before among the billionaire tech class that net worth is totally irrelevant to their life, as they can buy anything they want, except that it’s the key metric they use to keep score among themselves.
Whether Musk, Bezos, or Gates, is the richest man in America at any given time, is what really motivates them in business.
This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.
Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM
I'm glad that someone has mentioned the leaks of confidential information to Epstein. Misconduct at an absolute minimum. But it could potentially also be the passing on of unpublished price sensitive information - a criminal offence - and if Epstein or others traded on the basis of such information that would be insider dealing. It is potentially incredibly serious.
I was doing quite a few leak inquiries around this time and if government was involved it was pretty obvious that many of the leaks came from it - and to a few favoured journalists. There are a few names I'd be very interested to see if they appear in these files.
Mandelson should be expelled from the Lords. Starmer is weak in not having announced this already and in allowing him to resign rather than expelling him.
I think Mandleson probably has far too much dirt on everyone in the echelons of power in this country to be deposed in such a manner. His friendship with Epstein who looks as though he was working as a triple agent for the CIA, Mosad and the Russians probably came with the benefits of having all of these little facts about the people he could use against them.
Sweep the whole rotten cabal away. It's not as if they've been any good at their day jobs.
I don't disagree with you and have been saying as much for the better part of 10 years. We have a class of politicians, civil servants and executives who exist in a separate world in which they are untouchable and above the law. If you can figure out a way to sweep them away without setting the country down the path to fascism I'm all ears. I think a Tory/Reform coalition might be the only realistic way to get change which sounds ridiculous but the time of centrist dads just knuckling under has allowed the rot to fester and take over. There are so many scandals for which these same self satisfied centrist dads tell the rest of us to keep quiet while protecting the powerful people who perpetrate and cover up serious crimes.
The system is broken and the smug centrists are all around us telling us that it isn't. Attempting to convince everyone that the sky is green because admitting that they've been wrong about everything for the past 20 years is too much to handle.
In my experience, people who want to do away with civil servants are also the kind of people who complain if they can't get through to someone from HMRC on the phone. The vast majority of civil servants work for moderate wages to try and deliver the public services that everyone else takes for granted. Perhaps you mean just the permanent secretaries and Non Execs?
How many Permanent Secretaries visited Epstein Island? How many are mentioned in the files?
It's quite a leap.
How many permanent secretaries covered up for those who did visit the island? Not such a big leap, is it?
Just think it's quite funny it took you two comments to find the real villains of the piece. Plenty of problems with the civil service but I'm not convinced Epstein is a big one.
Or maybe that's just what you decided to pick out of what I said? I pointed to a class of unaccountable and untouchable politicians, civil servants and executives. That you seem to have latched on to just one of the three groups is on you, not me.
I think a big part of the problem is labelling those who disagree with them as racists, thickos, lazy, uneducated etc. It enrages people.
Actually, scratch that: a massive part.
This is precisely what every government from 1997 to 2016 did.
Point of order. John Major signed the Treaty of Maastricht.
This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.
Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.
Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM
This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.
Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM
Right Gordo, we need a back channel to you, so we need you to come up with a nom de guerre...thinks....I'll be Pond, John Pond....its can be anything yopu like Gordon....I want to be John Pond.
Comments
However the army of Reform social media seem to be focussed on the following instead.
Their candidate isn't the real candidate, it's an overweight trans woman with a record.
She's married to a millionaire.
She isn't a plumber really.
She lives in Coventry.
Has anyone checked if she has a willy?
I don't understand the existence of all the photographs. The fact that taking pictures seems to have been normalised is utterly bizarre unless it was deliberate collection of kompromat.
Starmer has questions to answer on due diligence. And Mandelson needs to be questioned under caution for his emails from August and September 2009.
Trump, who you seem comfortable with on the other hand has far bigger and serious questions about potential ultimate illegality to answer for.
Some of what Thatcher did was necessary but like everything, you can have too much of a good thing. That is a point which is not appreciated or understood, well or at all. So we do something which works ok or even well and then think that it can be expanded willy nilly to everything with no controls or appreciation of the risks arising from excessive use or expansion. Eg PFI in small doses = probably ok. PFI for everything with no controls or appreciation = an expensive disaster.
Really, people should just bloody well listen to me.
Both are despicable acts of potential treachery.
Alongside that, things like utility privatisation and government centralisation weren't even good things in the first place..
The alternative was a target like Kiel - something near or on the seacoast.
With Japan, the issue was doing damage - Tokyo was a ruin already (much worse than Berlin would ever be) - and it was thought that killing the Emperor would cause the Japanese to go berserk and literally fight to the death.
So I would go for Matt Goodwin has been caught lying / economic with the truth depending on your political viewpoint.
Consider the savage hatred of the existing church by a number of Protestants. And the accounts of what was going on in the monasteries in England - that were destroyed on the orders of Queen Mary. Add in the fact that a major reason for the Reformation was the extra-judicial privileges of the clergy. They were legally untouchable by the civil courts. Add in the modern scandals. Add in the fact that human nature has not changed.
What do you get?
Meanwhile, Jimmy Page remains a national treasure.
What doesn't work is keeping on trying to find alternatives to the fundamental separation of powers, each doing their job properly. There isn't some other theory that works better.
Anyway, time for me to do some exciting dusting.
It might be better for Starmer though if Goodwin scrapes home with Labour a close second and the Greens third and with Labour and the Greens combined well over 50% as that would help him squeeze back the Greens vote
Calling voters a basket of deplorables isn’t going to win you an election.
Sure have a go at the political on the other side, but don’t dare have a go at those who might vote for them.
Quite good on Zack and NATO:
https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/2018058866013909010
A bit doubtful of the Brazilian army's capacity to repel a Russian invasion of Finland.
People emailing stuff from work to themselves outside is a massive red flag. At least it should be.
Yes the admin is going to spend loads of time looking at flight and hotel bookings, but also stuff that should never get out.
https://bsky.app/profile/jessicaelgot.bsky.social/post/3mdv27bsw7s2v
The Lib Dems have become the first party to call for Lord Mandelson to face an investigation for misconduct in public office - a criminal offence - over the leaking of sensitive No 10 emails
Ed Davey, Lib Dem leader, says: 'The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the Government to lower its tax bill
'These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office.'
Staggering to see emails suggest Mandelson advised JP Morgan’s Dimon via Epstein to “mildly threaten” Cabinet colleague Alastair Darling over banker bonus tax.
The Dimon call DID happen, Darling told me about it, including apparent threat to shun gilts & re HQ…
https://x.com/AaronBlake/status/2018300123017605588
"How not to inform" would likely be more accurate.
I detest centrism and all its works, and believe Starmer has the foot on the accelerator of our national decline. However, I would vote for him a thousand times over Zack Polanski. To do otherwise would be a despicable dereliction of duty.
Lord Mandelson gave Jeffrey Epstein advance notice of a €500bn bailout to save the Euro
He messaged Epstein about the bailout on the evening of May 9, 2010
It was formally announced the following morning
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2018334546798752193?s=20
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch tells
@LBC
@Fraser_Knight
the Epstein files show "potential evidence of corruption in public office" & she’d support a criminal investigation into Lord Mandelson
Mandelson would have been in very big trouble if this had been spotted at the time, and been escalated to FS and PM in a timely manner.
The complaint was filed last May with the intelligence community’s inspector general, WSJ reported in its description of a November letter to Gabbard from Bakaj. It’s understood to also implicate another federal agency and to raise potential claims of executive privilege, suggesting possible White House involvement.
Oooooh.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tulsi-gabbard-whistleblower-report-b2912149.html
Was built by a foreign power - the British - shortly before it was forced to quit India in some ignominy. Would seem an odd inspiration for something celebrating 250 years of freedom *from* British colonialism.
https://bsky.app/profile/gabrielmilland.bsky.social/post/3mdv323kgjs2v
I don't want to provide any comfort for Mandelson but Bastani, not being very bright, and our own mischievous William Glen offer a faux equivalence. Being a potential traitor to the nation of course is far more serious than "being ambushed by a cake", which is why I have offered the KGB party example as an equally vile and despicable act of potential treachery.
Voting Green is no different to my vote for Plaid in May to have the same effect
In Green there is no danger of them winning a GE, and Plaid is the party for Wales
It is called tactical voting
Corporate crime 101: if you must tip somebody off illegally, for God's sake do it over the phone or in person.
I think "meaningfully need more power or money" is the key. My experience with rich/powerful people, men especially, is they always want more. It's their dopamine drip.
https://bsky.app/profile/samfr.bsky.social/post/3mdurd3eih222
To which I'd add two things:
1 This is why making individual power or wealth limitless is probably a bad idea.
2 We know that each extra pound of wealth has a reducing gain in happiness; you need more £££ for each extra unit of joy. Does the same happen with power?
🚨BREAKING - Gordon Brown says he has asked the Cabinet Secretary "to investigate the disclosure of confidential and market sensitive information" allegedly from Mandelson
Says he asked the cabinet office to investigate this in September and department found no record.
Whether Musk, Bezos, or Gates, is the richest man in America at any given time, is what really motivates them in business.
NEW: Who was John Pond?
This August 2009 email exchange which was forwarded to Epstein included Mandelson, the PM's PPS Jeremy Heywood, the minister/adviser Shriti Vadera and... John Pond.
Two sources have told the BBC that John Pond was in fact Gordon Brown, then the PM
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/2018332431976218806?s=20
Not surprising from an IT point of view, but a lot of people are going to end up knowing that alias over time.
This will be all about Mandelson - China is irrelevant now to the public
I thought he was home and hosed after the Post Office scandal.