Political round up.............

ps the Best leaders surround themselves with the best people.   Not so good leaders surround themselves with those that are not going to challenge them.  So maybe the reason why it appears that there is a poor selection of candidates is partly due to Boris Johnson.  Another reason may be that the leadership qualities and the general competence levels of elected mps has declined.

This is a general question - how does deregulation work.  So for example are members of the Scottish Parliament also members of the British Parliament?  Is it possible for example that someone who holds an office in the Scottish Government also to hold an office in the British Government.  Is it theoretically possible for the First Minister of Scotland also to be the Prime Minister.  In the past the British Government contained top level people from Scotland and Wales (and maybe N Ireland) - are these people nowadays locked up in their own national assemblies?

Douglas Ross is head of the Scottish conservatives and he's also an MP and MSP. Theres nothing stopping someone sitting in two parliaments, however most choose not to because of the workload of trying to manage two constituencies. Ross is a special case because he has 4 jobs - he's also a part time linesman in Scottish football - and he sucks at all 4.

The only way the Scottish FM would also be PM is for them to lead a UK wide party. I suppose it is theoretically possible but I dont think it would ever happen.

No name Bertie wrote:I think Liz Truss has the potential to be a complete disaster.  I suppose if Sunak had a paler complexion and didn't have a wife that avoided paying British tax (but then again don't most have off shore based investments?) he would be an easy winner.

He's also a literal criminal, and had that disastrous PR stunt where he showed he did know how to pay for a can of juice and had to borrow someone elses car to get photos of him filling up.

You also have to question the motives and morals of a man who has as much money as he does and choosing to get into politics.

No name Bertie wrote:I think Liz Truss has the potential to be a complete disaster.  I suppose if Sunak had a paler complexion and didn't have a wife that avoided paying British tax (but then again don't most have off shore based investments?) he would be an easy winner.

What's his colour got to do with it? If it were purely up to the members then Badenoch would have won by a country mile.

Sunak's going to lose because he was a terrible chancellor, he broke the law, he isn't remotely Conservative no matter how he pretends, and he comes across terribly in front of the cameras.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/aug/04/keir-starmer-found-to-have-breached-mps-code-of-conduct-over-register-of-interests

Good heavens, Mr. Rules himself has broken the rules. Totally incapable of holding himself up to the standards he demands of others, but through incompetence, not malice. Not a good sign for a potential future PM.

Starmer's also selling a plot of land for a sum in excess of £100,000, but I suppose we're all in it together, eh comrade?

Labour's lead down to 1% with YouGov, but 14% with Ipsos Mori. The real truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a445fbaa-b7ac-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=be2152d35204485147d3a7a32b775889

Kier Starmer planning to star in a fly-on-the-wall documentary. Bonus points if he manages to say 'Do I not like that'.

I can easily imagine Sir Keir coming out with Taylorisms. Just trying to think of a parallel of the time Taylor ‘llost’ the dressing room by saying, “ we must try and stop the other team scoring goals.” When even Tony Adams is rolling his eyes at a person’s  mind blowinlngly  banal turn of phrase, you’re in trouble.

And Rish! says the quiet bit out loud when he admits to class war and effectively being a reverse Robin Hood.
The data was there all along that there was no so-called levelling up. But people need these truths to be so explicit as to be undeniable as is the case here as he was caught on tape telling the darlings of Tunbridge Wells that they are benefitting from a reversal of Labour attempts at helping out poorer areas.
Does anyone think the Red Wall voters will overlook this..?

Wheres Boris Johnson? He is still the PM isnt he?

UK beaches being pumped full of so much sewage people are being told not to go swimming while future PM Liz Truss bangs on about even MORE deregulation is peak Tory.

YouGov gives Labour a 15-point lead.

LAB: 43%
CON: 28%
LD: 11%
GRN: 7%
SNP: 5%
REF: 4%

If repeated at a general election Labour would get a 126 seat majority.

Conservative MPs losing their seats would include Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Grant Shapps and Dominic Raab.

If Rees-Mogg (and his ilk) lost their seats at the next GE, I might even re-consider my atheism. The man's an utter sh!t. Far too happy to talk nonsense and stir it up from behind the lines, but not willing to step up and lead. A coward, and a better example of a tw@t you couldn't hope to find.

Inflation is predicted to reach 18% in the UK next year. And Liz Truss wants to pour the petrol of unfunded tax cuts on that bonfire.

Utter madness.

With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

You'd have preferred tens of thousands of extra deaths?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:You'd have preferred tens of thousands of extra deaths?

That's what we're getting now anyway, predominantly because of the delays in health care treatment caused by lockdown.

The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

Depends whose taxes are being cut. Knowing this current crop of Tories I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it wont be mine or yours.

Protecting the retired middle class home owners from carrying their proper tax burden has provided the government with cover up to now, but I suspect that they will come knocking on that seafront house in Eastbourne with the begging bowl before too long,and the Conservatives are going to haemorrhage votes big time by 2024.

It has been said that the reason why we have a sudden and exponentially increasing inflation is not directly due to the Ukraine - Russia war, but due to the British sanctions on Russia preventing British companies accessing cheap Russian oil, gas, wheat, fertilizer etc.  This is what happens when your supply chain is dependent on a particular country (more like a continent: "Russia - Siberia") for natural energy and food resources and then you willingly stop buying those cheap resources in order to make a political / geopolitical statement.

With the G7 / EU / UK / US sanctioning of Russia - which those political leaders thought would destroy the Russian economy, destabilize Russia and lead to the ousting of Vladimir Putin for a leader that would be more acceptable to them - it has instead rebounded onto their own economies - and it was entirely predictable.  This is likely to become permanent as Russia finds new markets to sell its cheap primary resources, in particular China and India.

Given that there appears to be cross parliament support for the sanctioning of Russia (denying British companies cheap natural resources from Russia) - none of the British Political class appear to have a solution for the current predicament Britain finds itself in.

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

It may do, but there are no guarantees. At least Truss is saying she will do something, whereas Sunak wants to stay largely on the same course.

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

It may do, but there are no guarantees. At least Truss is saying she will do something, whereas Sunak wants to stay largely on the same course.

But the fact she's already said she's going to implement her economic plans, without any impact assessment reports, and is going to fly blind is stupid. If banks etc are to be believed, inflation is going to be 18%. On top of petrol, energy, shopping etc. And someone who has very little knowledge of running an economy thinks she knows best. And everybody else is wrong, and not even at any point looking at what the effects are could be suicidal to the country.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

It's not getting home, is it? Sure, some people were saying so at the time (based on zero knowledge whatsoever, and vested interests in not locking down), but looking back and saying "I told you so!" is just plain stupid. What if Covid had turned out to be far worse than it has? Once more: we didn't know enough at that time. Your view that the ultimate costs will be more than if we hadn't may turn out to be correct, but, again, that's just hindsight and life I'm afraid.
I can understand Putin or some other self-centred tyrant not shutting their country down, but I seriously hope our morals are just a teensy bit better than that. Then again, w/ people like Rees-Mogg, I do wonder.

If it worked it would always look like we did too much

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

It's not getting home, is it? Sure, some people were saying so at the time (based on zero knowledge whatsoever, and vested interests in not locking down), but looking back and saying "I told you so!" is just plain stupid. What if Covid had turned out to be far worse than it has? Once more: we didn't know enough at that time. Your view that the ultimate costs will be more than if we hadn't may turn out to be correct, but, again, that's just hindsight and life I'm afraid.
I can understand Putin or some other self-centred tyrant not shutting their country down, but I seriously hope our morals are just a teensy bit better than that. Then again, w/ people like Rees-Mogg, I do wonder.

Lockdown was actually immoral.

As I've said previously, the first lockdown can be justified from a 'we didn't know enough' perspective (though arguably not for so long), but further lockdowns were not justifiable, at least in the manner prescribed.

The idea that the people who were saying that lockdown was more harmful in the long run were doing so based on zero knowledge is a fantasy. Sure, this may apply to a minority of them, but we knew from at least April 2020 who was at high-risk, transmission rates, fatality % etc.

We did know enough. And history will judge accordingly.

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

That's not my recollection of it at all.

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

It may do, but there are no guarantees. At least Truss is saying she will do something, whereas Sunak wants to stay largely on the same course.

But the fact she's already said she's going to implement her economic plans, without any impact assessment reports, and is  going to fly blind is stupid. If banks etc are to be believed,  inflation is going to be 18%. On top of petrol, energy, shopping etc. And someone who has very little knowledge of running an economy thinks she knows best. And everybody else is wrong, and not even at any point looking at what the effects are could be suicidal to the country.

Yes, I think she should submit her plans to the OBR. The issue with that, from her perspective, is the OBR will take ten weeks (minimum) to produce an analysis, and she feels that action is needed right away. This is another side-effect of the Tory leadership contest being dragged out for far too long.

We'll see who's right with inflation. Citi think it'll be 18%, but the Bank of England are more optimistic and think it'll peak at 13% before falling sharply. I'd probably believe the graver estimates at the moment.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

That's not my recollection of it at all.

You're right actually, I'm giving people too much credit.

Only a small minority said so at the time.

Duty281 wrote:

Luke wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Derek Smalls wrote:

Duty281 wrote:With inflation going up tax revenue will increase as well, so there is some room to make tax cuts. Tax cuts do need to happen because the burden is currently at its highest since the 1940s and the economy is being strangled. Reversing the NIC rise and not going ahead with an increase in corporation tax seems very sensible in an effort to stimulate the economy. I wonder if Labour still oppose the rise in corporation tax? Will they change their mind once Truss opposes it?

Of course we're all paying for the disastrous lockdown policy which cost £250bn-£400bn and is one of the main drivers that threw us into this inflationary spiral.

Do you think tax cuts will stimulate growth, when the consumer is not spending on the high street? We have more of a Supply problem and tax cuts are the supposed panacea for a demand problem.

It may do, but there are no guarantees. At least Truss is saying she will do something, whereas Sunak wants to stay largely on the same course.

But the fact she's already said she's going to implement her economic plans, without any impact assessment reports, and is  going to fly blind is stupid. If banks etc are to be believed,  inflation is going to be 18%. On top of petrol, energy, shopping etc. And someone who has very little knowledge of running an economy thinks she knows best. And everybody else is wrong, and not even at any point looking at what the effects are could be suicidal to the country.

Yes, I think she should submit her plans to the OBR. The issue with that, from her perspective, is the OBR will take ten weeks (minimum) to produce an analysis, and she feels that action is needed right away. This is another side-effect of the Tory leadership contest being dragged out for far too long.

We'll see who's right with inflation. Citi think it'll be 18%, but the Bank of England are more optimistic and think it'll peak at 13% before falling sharply. I'd probably believe the graver estimates at the moment.

Or being cynical about it, she knows that what she wants to do won't fly by deeper investigation.

Though agree that the leadership contest is running far to long, and it's hard to think of a legitimate reason why.
As for inflation, I tend to think we'll probably be nearer Citi figure, the worry is how long it will last.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

That's not my recollection of it at all.

You're right actually, I'm giving people too much credit.

Only a small minority said so at the time.

Famed epidemiologists like Julia Hartley-Brewer, Lawrence Fox and Right Said Fred.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:The trouble w/ Covid, is it wasn't really lethal enough; hence you have a myriad of berks pontificating after the fact. Let's extrapolate a bit:

- unknown and novel virus outbreak.
- airborne and initial figures suggest it's pretty lethal to most age groups. However, we're not sure because, well, it's new.
- Government of the day doesn't lockdown because, well, the ERG say "How dare you threaten our freedoms?!? Don't you know that my grandfather fought on the beaches of Normandy?!?"
- several months later, it's completely out of control, has a lethality of ≥75% (kind of like ebola) because we know about it now.
- hundreds of thousands are dead already in the UK alone.
- civil unrest and anarchy are in full flow.

Get the picture? Of course they had to lock the bloody place down. Applying 20:20 hindsight and in light of more detailed knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 is asinine. Be thankful that Covid wasn't as lethal as SARS in that initial wave, and that only had an overall lethality of ~10%.

It isn't hindsight, many people said so at the time. The cost of the lockdown(s) we engaged in as a nation will be greater than the supposed benefits that lockdown(s) brought.

That's not my recollection of it at all.

You're right actually, I'm giving people too much credit.

Only a small minority said so at the time.

Famed epidemiologists like Julia Hartley-Brewer, Lawrence Fox and Right Said Fred.

Although Right Said Fred were demonstrating extreme social distancing when they did that gig outside a Post Office last week.

Town Hall Husting - Question to Liz Truss

Questioner:  British Values are under threat - would you press the nuclear button knowing this would result in global annihilation and the death of every man, woman and child in Britain?
Liz Truss: I would do it.
Questioner: How would you feel?
Liz Truss: If it gets me elected I would do it.  I am important you know and I would bomb Russia.
Audience: whoops of joy, clapping and cheering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM8evVhzHPI&ab_channel=DailyMail

On that one, to be fair, there's not really much point in a deterrent if you say you won't use it.

Boris going on holiday and refusing to do his job because he's having a strop at being removed is very on brand.

Sunak should do the honourable thing and withdraw given this morning's news, future projections and that the polls give him virtually no chance. But that's too much to expect clearly.

Boris was back in Ukraine alongside Zelensky saying the British people must pay the costs of the British sanctions against Russia and the consequent massive rises in fuel and food prices because the Ukrainians are paying with their own blood.   Before Boris was forced to resign he said he would only resign if Britain decided not to support Ukraine against the Eastern Ukrainian separatists and Russia.   Boris has been one of Zelensky's biggest supporters saying Britain would support him all the way.  

Ever since the 2014 coup in Ukraine** which replaced a pro Russian Government with a pro Western Government, the ethnic Russians which are mainly found in Eastern Ukraine and who number about 18% of the entire population of Ukraine started demanding independence, but those demands were refused and the Ukrainian east was fortified and militiarized with Western funding to ensure control of the east against a hostile reaction from the eastern Ukrainians.

** Also known as the Revolution of Dignity and the Maidan Revolution.

It boiled my p!ss that he said that while he was in Kyiv. If he's got something to say to the people of the UK, he can stand at a lectern in Downing Street and say it. It's disrespectful and cowardly to slip it in at a foreign press conference.

No name Bertie wrote:Town Hall Husting - Question to Liz Truss

Questioner:  British Values are under threat - would you press the nuclear button knowing this would result in global annihilation and the death of every man, woman and child in Britain?
Liz Truss: I would do it.
Questioner: How would you feel?
Liz Truss: If it gets me elected I would do it.  I am important you know and I would bomb Russia.
Audience: whoops of joy, clapping and cheering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM8evVhzHPI&ab_channel=DailyMail

Julia Hartley-Brewer: Emmanuel Macron, friend or foe?
Liz Truss: Jury's out on that one.

Frak hell. The UK Banter Years are in full swing and she's not even PM yet.

Outgoing “PM” and perpetual Frak Johnson popped his head out from under the parapet to deliver some excellent assistance to people struggling with their energy bills;

“If you have an old kettle, it may cost £20 to replace it. But spending that £20 now will save you £10 a year.”

Nice one you rampaging bumhole. What about the other £3990 of the electric bill? What an enormous cretin. Seriously, what did we do to deserve this calibre of politician?

How different is Truss's election from, say, the latest Chinese emperor president?

Boris Johnson has spent a lot of time in Ukraine and if the true history of events are going to be revealed in the West then I think we shall discover Boris was one of the most important cheerleaders for Ukraine's disastrous decision making and the consequent and highly predictable catastrophic consequences for the UK economy. The Tories were supposed to be the ones that one could trust with the British economy but not these ones. One thing that has been learnt from the wars in Iraq and Libya and Syria is how to maintain the narrative.

Disastrous decision making? Attempting to defend your sovereign cannot be described in such a manner.

Soul Requiem wrote:Disastrous decision making? Attempting to defend your sovereign cannot be described in such a manner.

NATO intervened and bombed Serbia when Serbia tried to maintain sovereignty over Kosovo, meanwhile the West supported the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government in 2014 and since then  there has been a civil war in Ukraine with ever increasing oppressive measures by the pro-Western Ukrainian Government to regain control of the semi-autonomous regions of the East.  There has been a long history of events that have  been totally ignored and a cartoon narrative has been used to replace that.  Ukraine is heading for annihilation against Russia, although Russia has been extremely moderate in its response compared to what it could do.  Most of the fighting has been between Ukrainians (west and east) plus about 10% of the Russian armed forces.  But continue to justify this war, continue to support Boris Johnson, continue to support the sanctions that is the primary cause of these price rises in Britain.

You're conveniently ignoring the pressure Russia put on Yanyukovych to sign a Eurasian economic trade agreement rather than one with the EU. An agreement that had been overwhelming approved by the Ukrainian government. That sparked the protests that saw him overthrown from power.

There is a "breaking news" article on the BBC website:

bbc wrote:As UK counts pennies we count casualties - Zelenska
Ukraine's first lady says it's important to keep highlighting the human cost of the war in her country.

Now far from me being cynical, it does seem to be taken from the SAME script previously articulated by Boris Johnson when he was in Ukraine (24th August).  Same message, directed at the British people, and mediated by the British Media.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62766917

No name Bertie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Disastrous decision making? Attempting to defend your sovereign cannot be described in such a manner.

NATO intervened and bombed Serbia when Serbia tried to maintain sovereignty over Kosovo, meanwhile the West supported the overthrow of the Ukrainian Government in 2014 and since then  there has been a civil war in Ukraine with ever increasing oppressive measures by the pro-Western Ukrainian Government to regain control of the semi-autonomous regions of the East.  There has been a long history of events that have  been totally ignored and a cartoon narrative has been used to replace that.  Ukraine is heading for annihilation against Russia, although Russia has been extremely moderate in its response compared to what it could do.  Most of the fighting has been between Ukrainians (west and east) plus about 10% of the Russian armed forces.  But continue to justify this war, continue to support Boris Johnson, continue to support the sanctions that is the primary cause of these price rises in Britain.

I'm not sure that you could say it supported, more like cowardly decided to do nothing

No name Bertie wrote:There is a "breaking news" article on the BBC website:

bbc wrote:As UK counts pennies we count casualties - Zelenska
Ukraine's first lady says it's important to keep highlighting the human cost of the war in her country.

Now far from me being cynical, it does seem to be taken from the SAME script previously articulated by Boris Johnson when he was in Ukraine (24th August).  Same message, directed at the British people, and mediated by the British Media.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62766917

It's not being cynical at all.Johnson is a shill for the highest bidder, a la Call Me Tony, and it's not hard to see who's pulling his strings.

No name Bertie wrote:Boris Johnson has spent a lot of time in Ukraine and if the true history of events are going to be revealed in the West then I think we shall discover Boris was one of the most important cheerleaders for Ukraine's disastrous decision making and the consequent and highly predictable catastrophic consequences for the UK economy.  The Tories were supposed to be the ones that one could trust with the British economy but not these ones.  One thing that has been learnt from the wars in Iraq and Libya and Syria is how to maintain the narrative.

You are so wrong I don't know where to start. Russia sponsored the 'rebellion' in the east and staffed it with Russian soldiers on holiday. (then quietly murdered most of the 'rebel' leadership they had supported during the breakaway). A Russian AA system shot down MH17. Ukraine didn't provoke the 'SMO'. All they did was decide to fight back.

To add to that Ukraine didn't kill 20% + of the population of a 500K city. Ukraine didn't indiscriminately bomb their own cities, didn't r***, torture and murder their own citizens in areas under occupation. What the hell was Ukraine supposed to do? Well we know what they decided to do, and that is grinding the Russian army into dust and fertilizer. The cost to Ukraine is terrible, but they feel the alternative is worse, and they are going to win this war.

Of course this war isn't good for the economy, but its impact will be limited compared to Brexit and the staggering incompetence of our government

Johnson did some good in Ukraine, although obviously for the wrong reasons. Wasn't it Heseltine who described him as the guy who see's which way the crowd is going, then runs to the front and shouts out 'follow me'? This was no where more obvious than in Ukraine, where a phone call or visit and the offer of more support always followed every catastrophe at home (and we all know how many of those there were)

lostinwales wrote:

Johnson did some good in Ukraine, although obviously for the wrong reasons. Wasn't it Heseltine who described him as the guy who see's which way the crowd is going, then runs to the front and shouts out 'follow me'? This was no where more obvious than in Ukraine, where a phone call or visit and the offer of more support always followed every catastrophe at home (and we all know how many of those there were)

This is very important. Lets not sit here and pretend Johnson was constantly in contact with Ukraine out of altruism or humanitarianism, he was constantly using the plight of the Ukrainian people as a human shield to divert attention away from his own man sausage-ups. Just one point in a long list of reasons he was a terrible PM. Hopefully this investigation finds he did deliberately mislead parliament and it kills his political career stone dead.