Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A message to political leaders – Remember, you are mortal.

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 27 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A message to political leaders – Remember, you are mortal.

Curiously, the reasons why some political leaders fall from office is linked to what was once their strengths rather than their weaknesses. Callaghan’s closeness to the unions was seen as one reason why he (rather than the confrontational Heath or strident Castle) would be better able to reach a workable accommodation with them, to the country’s benefit. Having undermined the “In Place of Strife” proposals it was poetic justice that it was the unions’ behaviour which destroyed his (and Labour’s) USP, forever associating the Callaghan premiership with the Winter of Discontent. Similarly, Thatcher – a politician priding herself on speaking up for ordinary taxpayers – was brought down her hubristic refusal to understand the outrage and sense of unfairness which the poll tax (an attempt to protect her beloved ratepayers) engendered.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,286
    Yellow taped it!
  • First.

    After I go Cameron Bancroft on Scrapheap’s post.
  • Excellent thread header Cyclefree. Hubris is the downfall of many.
  • The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,445
    FPT But very relevant here:
    CD13 said:

    I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!

    The funny thing is that after three inquiries there is still no evidence that Blair and Campbell actually lied (although Butler apparently thought he should resign). Every enquiry says that they believed what they said.

    Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.

    And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!

    As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,445

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    But he is, isn't he? His manifesto was chock full of lies and contradictions, his entire campaign is built around his personal decency and the horrible nastiness of his enemies, and he doesn't care about reality as long as he gets to occupy the moral high ground.

    I make this very parallel in the book I'm writing on new Labour - the irony that in seeking to regain their party's soul by electing Corbyn, Labour have elected a sort of stupid version of Blair.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    A good, if somewhat depressing, article, Miss Cyclefree.

    We can only hope the wretch never has his hands on power.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    edited March 27

    That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
    If you say so. Perhaps you're right, but given you've been saying either us not leaving at all or rejoining is inevitable practically from the start, you seem to think most things indicate that inevitability.

    The boy who cried wolf was right in the end, though, I suppose.
    Brilliant. Perfect in pointing out the hypocrisy.

    Interesting bet from PP - Donald Trump's meeting with the Rocket Man not to go ahead (evens).

    Trump has form for this...

    I thought if there was going to ever be such a meeting we woukd find out the day before it happened . Announced in advanced gives do much time for one or the other to flounce out, or some external factor to get them to pull out.

  • ydoethur said:

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    But he is, isn't he? His manifesto was chock full of lies and contradictions, his entire campaign is built around his personal decency and the horrible nastiness of his enemies, and he doesn't care about reality as long as he gets to occupy the moral high ground.

    I make this very parallel in the book I'm writing on new Labour - the irony that in seeking to regain their party's soul by electing Corbyn, Labour have elected a sort of stupid version of Blair.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    So John McDonnell’s going to be his Gordon Brown?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436
    ydoethur said:

    FPT But very relevant here:

    CD13 said:

    I still retained a fragile hope that Tony had secret security information to make all those daft declarations about Saddam's plans. Nope, he was the usual duplicitous liar I suspected after all. Then he unleashed Mrs Rochester on the country!

    The funny thing is that after three inquiries there is still no evidence that Blair and Campbell actually lied (although Butler apparently thought he should resign). Every enquiry says that they believed what they said.

    Which leads to the rather startling conclusion that Blair and Campbell - having consistently and repeatedly lied all through their political careers, over education funding, tuition fees, inflation, unemployment, bank regulation, constitutional reform, to name only the ones that spring most readily to mind - actually for once told what they believed to be the truth, only to be proved brutally wrong.

    And yet, ironically, nobody remembers their astonishing track record of dishonesty and deception that an Irving or Archer would blush at, and everyone remembers the time they were wrong - and as a result believes they were liars!

    As the good witch of the south didn't quite say, 'Remember dear, karma's only a bitch if you are!'
    Its a nice story and some bad karma is the least they deserve but taking some student's thesis off the internet and passing it off as an intelligence assessment wasn't someone telling the truth. It was a lie, plain and simple.

    If I was being generous I would say that Blair concluded that our strategic interest in being America's closest pal overrode everything else and meant we simply had to go along with it. But the truth? They wouldn't know what that was if they were hit over the head with it.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429

    ydoethur said:

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    But he is, isn't he? His manifesto was chock full of lies and contradictions, his entire campaign is built around his personal decency and the horrible nastiness of his enemies, and he doesn't care about reality as long as he gets to occupy the moral high ground.

    I make this very parallel in the book I'm writing on new Labour - the irony that in seeking to regain their party's soul by electing Corbyn, Labour have elected a sort of stupid version of Blair.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    So John McDonnell’s going to be his Gordon Brown?
    He’s going to claim to have ended boom and bullet....?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    FPT:
    ydoethur said:

    That they’re using this defence means they’ve given up on protecting the mandate from the vote. A second referendum is looking inevitable.
    the ambition of the sinister nutters like Selmayr
    http://www.lesoir.be/147786/article/2018-03-27/affaire-selmayr-la-commission-europeenne-ment-au-parlement

    Selmayr case: the European Commission lies to Parliament
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,286

    First.

    After I go Cameron Bancroft on Scrapheap’s post.

    I'll have to Jonny Bairstow you if you go full Bancroft.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436
    On topic is it really Corbyn or even Blair who needed someone whispering in their ear , "remember you are mortal"? I think it is their followers. The temptation is to idolise and idealise the leaders of "our" team. It is a projection that is bound to end in disappointment and disillusionment. They are only human after all.

    As Bob Dylan once said:

    "Don't follow leaders!
    Watch the parking meters."
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436

    First.

    After I go Cameron Bancroft on Scrapheap’s post.

    I'll have to Jonny Bairstow you if you go full Bancroft.
    A few elegant strokes and then throw your wicket away?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,645
    A Corbyn government would certainly not stand up for taxpayers, those who want public services and a transport network free of strikes and those with assets and nations like Israel or the USA (short of a Sanders presidency) who have been our natural allies. It would be a government driven by Corbyn's values of socialism and anti what he sees as Western Imperialism and driven by ideology
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    I think it is often the case that ones strengths become ones weaknesses, in politics and in many other things. Over reliance on them. Failing to react when people or events adapt to them. Failure to recognise the approach you generally take is not appropriate right now. Decisiveness turning to hastiness. Prudent caution turned to a failure to act. Or indeed the examples Cyclefree gives us. Confidence in ones principals turning to inflexible disaster. It's to be found in several places right now, I hope enough recognise that and do something. Good day everybody.
  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,031
    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    Well there are still differences. But the job moulds you, and Corbyn has already adjusted his principles and as we saw yesterday gets pissed off at mouthy backbenchers, things he probably thought he wouldn't given his years of rebellion. But it was in him all along.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,290
    Dr ydoethur,

    "Labour have elected a sort of stupid version of Blair."

    Unfortunately, I suspect you're correct. The old saying ... 'If he had brains, he'd be dangerous.'

    True for Blair, I only hope it's true for Jezza too.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,828
    Thanks, cyclefree!
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,802

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    A bit over the top, but many who spent time in Stalin's gulags still had time for him after they were freed.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,429
    edited March 27
    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Look in the mirror first before slagging someone else off. Write a thread yourself if you think you can do better and submit it for publication.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626
    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Much is a matter of opinion and so not right or wrong, but what about it is pompous, if I may ask? It's well written? Attempting some deeper thematic analysis ? (Whether you think it succeeded or not is, of course, a different question. I think Owen Jones can write quite well for instance)
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,802
    Thanks for the article, @Cyclefree. Thought-provoking and well written as always.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    I wonder if some of this is the emotional/pragmatic divide between the classic left/right stereotypes (the left emphasising being good and moral, the right emphasising being competent and clever).

    We've seen this with rocket boosters under Corbyn. Identity politics and the concept of being on a given side making you inherently good or bad. And if you are the goodies, some will argue that a good outcome can justify, dilute or mitigate bad things that happen along the way. That's happening right now with Corbyn and his comments and actions regarding anti-Semitism. He didn't see it properly. It was a long time ago. He's always been anti-racist.

    The right isn't immune to hubris, of course. We need only look at May. But her earlier arrogance was rooted in fantastic polling evidence (large in quantity) and then vanquished by electoral reality. Whereas, whilst exceeding early expectations, Corbyn lost the election yet was feted as a hero.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    edited March 27
    Mr. Labour, Corbyn still has time for Stalin banners. What are 20m deaths in the quest for socialism?

    Edited extra bit: more recently:
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436
    Thankfully I think that the risk of Corbyn becoming PM has almost passed. There was a risk that the Tories might have failed to put together a majority government after that shambolic election, that they might collapse or break up in response to the deeply held views on Brexit and that May would simply be unable to build or keep the team together.

    In recent times May has managed to tack towards a soft Brexit and bring her party with her, she has done really well in response to Russia and she now has more control of her party than at any point since at least the election. It is hard to remember now the feebleness of the reshuffle where Minister after Minister refused to move and she was unable to do anything about it. She is now in control which means Hammond had better stop annoying her.

    None of which means that she does not have obvious and serious limitations of course. It simply means that Corbyn's time will pass without even another opportunity to go for the prize. Thank goodness for that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Everyone should have you on ignore.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436

    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Everyone should have you on ignore.
    Who?
  • DavidL said:

    Thankfully I think that the risk of Corbyn becoming PM has almost passed. There was a risk that the Tories might have failed to put together a majority government after that shambolic election, that they might collapse or break up in response to the deeply held views on Brexit and that May would simply be unable to build or keep the team together.

    In recent times May has managed to tack towards a soft Brexit and bring her party with her, she has done really well in response to Russia and she now has more control of her party than at any point since at least the election. It is hard to remember now the feebleness of the reshuffle where Minister after Minister refused to move and she was unable to do anything about it. She is now in control which means Hammond had better stop annoying her.

    None of which means that she does not have obvious and serious limitations of course. It simply means that Corbyn's time will pass without even another opportunity to go for the prize. Thank goodness for that.

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    DavidL said:

    Thankfully I think that the risk of Corbyn becoming PM has almost passed. There was a risk that the Tories might have failed to put together a majority government after that shambolic election, that they might collapse or break up in response to the deeply held views on Brexit and that May would simply be unable to build or keep the team together.

    In recent times May has managed to tack towards a soft Brexit and bring her party with her, she has done really well in response to Russia and she now has more control of her party than at any point since at least the election. It is hard to remember now the feebleness of the reshuffle where Minister after Minister refused to move and she was unable to do anything about it. She is now in control which means Hammond had better stop annoying her.

    None of which means that she does not have obvious and serious limitations of course. It simply means that Corbyn's time will pass without even another opportunity to go for the prize. Thank goodness for that.

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.
    Quite so. The hard Brexiters in particular look like they could be most disappointed, and as possibly the only chance to do this, how can they remain...silent that is, even if they risk cor by getting in?

    It's only a risk if you think the public will give him a lead after all. Who doesn't trust the public?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    DavidL said:

    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Everyone should have you on ignore.
    Who?
    Never heard of him!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 19,436

    DavidL said:

    Thankfully I think that the risk of Corbyn becoming PM has almost passed. There was a risk that the Tories might have failed to put together a majority government after that shambolic election, that they might collapse or break up in response to the deeply held views on Brexit and that May would simply be unable to build or keep the team together.

    In recent times May has managed to tack towards a soft Brexit and bring her party with her, she has done really well in response to Russia and she now has more control of her party than at any point since at least the election. It is hard to remember now the feebleness of the reshuffle where Minister after Minister refused to move and she was unable to do anything about it. She is now in control which means Hammond had better stop annoying her.

    None of which means that she does not have obvious and serious limitations of course. It simply means that Corbyn's time will pass without even another opportunity to go for the prize. Thank goodness for that.

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.
    3 months ago I would have said that finding a trade deal that satisfied them both would be impossible. But standing the latest agreement with the EU and the fact that relations are obviously still good standing their response to Russia I am much more hopeful that we will get a deal that suits both us and the EU without zealots from both sides getting in the way. There is a different tone to the discussions now (with the odd head case on each side still sounding off of course). Since David Davis is, was and always will be completely incompetent I am minded to give May the credit for this.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,658
    Excellent article from Cyclefree. It must be hard not to become a little hubristic and self confident when you are met with thousands upon thousands of adoring fans chanting your name. John Major never got that - though he did win an election.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,222
    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273
    No bandwagon left unjumped upon, though he seems to fall off them quite rapidly.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 31,828

    No bandwagon left unjumped upon, though he seems to fall off them quite rapidly.

    twitter.com/sadpankhurst/status/978381499715252224

    Does that really show his support?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    If only more of his supporters advanced an explanation like that. My impression sometimes of fanatics, on any side, is that they often up defending the position their leader is accused of having rather than the view they actually have. Just recently plenty of people seemed to praise corbyn for expressing doubt Russia was behind Salisbury, when his official position supported that but was (in my mind unnecessarily) advocating caution in reaction.

    I'm not entirely convinced he is open to other sides, but mindful of trying not to repeat that approach, I will take on board what you say.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,909

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,429
    DavidL said:

    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.

    Everyone should have you on ignore.
    Who?
    Quite!
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700
    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,626

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
    A fair point. Funny how opposites can come together sometimes.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
    That was as stupid then as it is now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. L, now you mention it, I vaguely remember that. Wasn't that partly because the incumbent president, who had snipers targeting crowds, was removed from/chased from office and fled to Russia?

    He was a Russophile leader, unlike the Orange Revolution chap (Yanukovic? Name escapes me) who was more pro-EU. I think the protesting crowds wanted more trade with the EU, or suchlike, and the EU/Ashton made supportive noises which was perhaps unwise. But not justification for invasion.

    However, this did happen some time after the 2008 (ish) Russian invasion of Georgia, so it can't have been beyond the realm of possibility (maybe even probability).

    /endramble
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 35,300

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798
    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    In Putin’s interviews with Oliver Stone the biggest single issue he identified as a justification for military action was that because Ukraine didn’t join the Eurasian Union and instead signed a trade deal with the EU, there would be a customs border between Russia and Ukraine. It’s Ukrainian sovereignty that Putin sees as a provocation.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957
    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Former EU Commissioner Patten.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700
    Elliot said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
    That was as stupid then as it is now.
    tbh it was never really clear why some sort of fudge was not cooked up whereby Russia bought back the Crimea which was historically Russian anyway for however many rubles were needed to save face.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Glenn, ah, cheers for that rather better-remembered post than mine.

    Not to mention Crimea, of course.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,414

    he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, ,

    Just occasionally we get to see the real tankie behind the amiable mask.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    In Putin’s interviews with Oliver Stone the biggest single issue he identified as a justification for military action was that because Ukraine didn’t join the Eurasian Union and instead signed a trade deal with the EU, there would be a customs border between Russia and Ukraine. It’s Ukrainian sovereignty that Putin sees as a provocation.
    I still find it jaw dropping when supposed socialists believe the small, oppressed nations should be bound by 19th Century notions of spheres of influence. Don't the Poles, Georgians and Ukrainians get to decide their national fates? Whatever happened to self-determination?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957

    Elliot said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
    That was as stupid then as it is now.
    tbh it was never really clear why some sort of fudge was not cooked up whereby Russia bought back the Crimea which was historically Russian anyway for however many rubles were needed to save face.
    How could Ukraine trust any deal with Russia, given it had previously given up its nuclear weapons in return for a promise to respect its borders? Besides, Russia does not want a deal. It wants a frozen conflict it can restart at any time to provoke a crisis and intervene in Ukrainian politics.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,949
    A long way for Cyclefree to say "I don't like Corbyn" again. Who knew?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700

    No bandwagon left unjumped upon, though he seems to fall off them quite rapidly.

    Surely Le Pen is not denying the holocaust per se -- just blaming the Germans and exonerating the French. I doubt Paisley has any considered view on the matter. That's the trouble with this guilt by association. X met Y so their beliefs must be identical.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,909
    edited March 27
    Russia’s claim to Crimea on grounds of history, language, nationality and self-determination was very strong. There was no good reason to resort to military action, but Putin needed something to pep up his ratings.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700
    Elliot said:

    Elliot said:

    RoyalBlue said:

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    You cannot reasonably suggest that what happened in Ukraine was provocation unless, like Putin, you think that Russia has a unilateral right to intervene in its former colonies when its interests are threatened. I doubt very much you recognise this right for Britain or France.
    Funnily enough, some pb Tories did take the line that Russia was provoked -- blaming Baroness Ashton and EU expansionism for the most part.
    That was as stupid then as it is now.
    tbh it was never really clear why some sort of fudge was not cooked up whereby Russia bought back the Crimea which was historically Russian anyway for however many rubles were needed to save face.
    How could Ukraine trust any deal with Russia, given it had previously given up its nuclear weapons in return for a promise to respect its borders? Besides, Russia does not want a deal. It wants a frozen conflict it can restart at any time to provoke a crisis and intervene in Ukrainian politics.
    Good question but how would it be worse off than it is now?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 27,383
    Good job that free owls for all policy never got enacted,

    Owl causes chaos at wedding, attacking best man after delivering rings

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/owl-causes-chaos-wedding-attacking-best-man-delivering-rings/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. P, they love the Labour brand more than they loathe Corbyn and his friends.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 1,909
    Dura_Ace said:

    he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, ,

    Just occasionally we get to see the real tankie behind the amiable mask.
    Today, let us give thanks for Anna Soubry.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,273

    No bandwagon left unjumped upon, though he seems to fall off them quite rapidly.

    Surely Le Pen is not denying the holocaust per se -- just blaming the Germans and exonerating the French. I doubt Paisley has any considered view on the matter. That's the trouble with this guilt by association. X met Y so their beliefs must be identical.
    I doubt Paisley jr has considered views on anything very much. I'd also say that denying the historical fact of one's country's complicity in the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Former EU Commissioner Patten.
    Since you haven’t offered a counter argument, I’ll assume that you haven’t got one.

    If you have one that involves a mad conspiracy theory as your ad hominem might suggest, no need to share.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    Well, last time I compared him to Maggie......
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451
    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Its so bollock clenchingly cringeworthy that Patten et al can't see that everytime they open their mouths with a condescending comment about the Uk that they make their chances of reversing Brexit more and more remote.

    Who is advising them on PR ? it's diabolical - unless of course their aim is purely to signal their virtue to the dwindling band of continuity remainers.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695

    ydoethur said:

    The Corbynites are going to love you saying their absolute boy is just like Blair.

    But he is, isn't he? His manifesto was chock full of lies and contradictions, his entire campaign is built around his personal decency and the horrible nastiness of his enemies, and he doesn't care about reality as long as he gets to occupy the moral high ground.

    I make this very parallel in the book I'm writing on new Labour - the irony that in seeking to regain their party's soul by electing Corbyn, Labour have elected a sort of stupid version of Blair.

    I have to go. Have a good morning.
    So John McDonnell’s going to be his Gordon Brown?
    And trash the economy.......?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    On topic, all leaders have a shelf life. Better leaders have longer shelf lives than worse leaders but both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be approaching if not past their expiry dates in 2022. Both should be planning their retirement before that date.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,286
    DavidL said:

    First.

    After I go Cameron Bancroft on Scrapheap’s post.

    I'll have to Jonny Bairstow you if you go full Bancroft.
    A few elegant strokes and then throw your wicket away?
    That's Vince surely.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670
    London retains top spot in global ranking:

    http://www.cityam.com/282918/london-remains-top-world-global-financial-services-says/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    Next EU city Frankfurt at number 20....
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,193

    Good job that free owls for all policy never got enacted,

    Owl causes chaos at wedding, attacking best man after delivering rings

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/owl-causes-chaos-wedding-attacking-best-man-delivering-rings/

    This happens a lot.

    My son works as a falconer at a place that also happens to be a wedding venue, and he frequently curses whichever idiot dreamed up the idea of owls at weddings. Birds of prey are unpredictable at the best of times and owls are the most truculent of the lot.

  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 3,249
    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Its so bollock clenchingly cringeworthy that Patten et al can't see that everytime they open their mouths with a condescending comment about the Uk that they make their chances of reversing Brexit more and more remote.

    Who is advising them on PR ? it's diabolical - unless of course their aim is purely to signal their virtue to the dwindling band of continuity remainers.
    Almost everyone now accepts that the reversing Brexit bird has long since flown. Patten is making some perfectly reasonable suggestions about how to secure as close to a cake-and-eat-it settlement as we could hope,
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,695

    The threader, although as always lucid and well-written, is based on a mistaken assumption, that Corbyn only talks to people who he instinctively sympathises with. This is simply mistaken - I've personally seen him deep in conversation with DUP people when I was still in Parliamen and there was no poltical advantage in it for him. In the same way, he's told me and I've no reason to doubt that he's talked with Israeli nationalists and people who most of us would think of as being on the Israeli far right.

    Whgat is true is slightly different. He'll talk to anyone, but until he became leader he saw his role as representing people who don't get a decent hearing because they are unpopular with the dominant Western view. It's not difficult to get a hearing if the Daily Mail or the Washington Post like you. It's harder to get one if they don't.

    As leader, he's had to learn to balance a wider range of opinions, and it's significant that mot of the cricisms relate to things in the past before he took on the leadership role. Of course he still makes mistakes - who doesn't? - and he still takes views that are unfashionable (he's quite right that the Russians were provoked in Ukraine, for instance, though also that the Russian armed reaction wa grossly disproportionate). But it misreads him to think he only talks to people he likes.

    (Replied to your personal query on he last thread, Cyclefree)

    Thanks Nick. I do admire the work you do for Compassion in World Farming: a worthy cause. (And trees - even zillions of the bloody things -are wonderful!)

    Corbyn has said he will speak to anyone but he has actively demonstrated and campaigned against the Israeli Foreign Minister coming to the UK (and she was not on the nationalist far right of Israeli politics). When a recent Labour delegation went to Israel it refused to meet with any Israeli politicians. So that is why I wrote what I did. If he has spoken to them in private nothing has ever come out and you would have thought that it would have, if only to show him in a better more even-handed light.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Rex, don't owls also symbolise death?

    I'm not a wedding expert, but I would've thought a winged Grim Reaper a less than auspicious guest.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,264
    There are 10 million bicycles in Beijing (as the song goes). Most of them seem to be stacked in large, rusting piles. Some super imagery here...
    https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,063

    London retains top spot in global ranking:

    http://www.cityam.com/282918/london-remains-top-world-global-financial-services-says/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    Next EU city Frankfurt at number 20....

    But look how fast the other cities are catching up. Almost certainly London will have slipped a couple of places by next year.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,949

    On topic, all leaders have a shelf life. Better leaders have longer shelf lives than worse leaders but both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be approaching if not past their expiry dates in 2022. Both should be planning their retirement before that date.

    You get at most 10 years at the top of politics. Anything beyond that and it starts getting painful. Corbyn has some way to go. May a little less.

    Note carefully Boris Johnson.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.

    I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,666

    Good job that free owls for all policy never got enacted,

    Owl causes chaos at wedding, attacking best man after delivering rings

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/owl-causes-chaos-wedding-attacking-best-man-delivering-rings/

    This happens a lot.

    My son works as a falconer at a place that also happens to be a wedding venue, and he frequently curses whichever idiot dreamed up the idea of owls at weddings. Birds of prey are unpredictable at the best of times and owls are the most truculent of the lot.

    I was just recently at a wedding (Dalhousie Castle) where an owl delivered the ring. It was like something from Harry Potter.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 7,700

    Mr. Rex, don't owls also symbolise death?

    I'm not a wedding expert, but I would've thought a winged Grim Reaper a less than auspicious guest.

    It seems quite apposite. If 40 per cent of marriages end in divorce, surely the other 60 per cent end in death?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 13,879
    JonathanD said:

    London retains top spot in global ranking:

    http://www.cityam.com/282918/london-remains-top-world-global-financial-services-says/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    Next EU city Frankfurt at number 20....

    But look how fast the other cities are catching up. Almost certainly London will have slipped a couple of places by next year.
    The cities that are catching up are those with a global outlook, not EU facing ones.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,193

    Mr. Rex, don't owls also symbolise death?

    I'm not a wedding expert, but I would've thought a winged Grim Reaper a less than auspicious guest.

    I believe they are, Mr Dancer, in some cultures at least.

    Not sure if they allow them at church weddings. An owl would be more than a portent of death for the church mice.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957
    edited March 27

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Former EU Commissioner Patten.
    Since you haven’t offered a counter argument, I’ll assume that you haven’t got one.

    If you have one that involves a mad conspiracy theory as your ad hominem might suggest, no need to share.
    He doesn't make an argument for there to be a counter argument. It is just childish name calling and insults to the Brexiteers.

    And no, the fact that he has something of a bias due to his past employment and current pension is not a conspiracy theory. To even take the job requires you to meet ideological criteria in supporting ever closer union.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,746
    Morning all :)

    Thank you for the article, Cyclefree. Some interesting points and in essence they can and should be applied to any and every politician including Theresa May and perhaps the only lesson to come from it is the inevitability of the maxim that all political careers end in failure.

    Blair was, until Iraq, a hugely successful Labour Prime Minister and in 2001 won as convincing a victory over the Conservatives as he had in 1997 with admittedly a derisory turnout but the fact was he was the dominant political figure of his time. Let's also not forget the psychological shock of September 11th 2001. The rationale, in the wake of those horrific events, for moving into Iraq seemed so much clearer to so many people (including many Conservatives).

    Those of us who opposed it were subject to the kind of vilification reserved for Jeremy Corbyn on this forum and it's hard to argue against a Prime Minister who throws around "in the national interest" a lot (again, plenty of parallels with now).

    Blair wasn't destroyed by Iraq per se but by the events of 9/11/01 and our need to respond to them.

    As for Corbyn, were he genuinely even-handed in his dealings, his innate pacifism wouldn't be a disadvantage and indeed might even be beneficial. The problem for me comes with his association with and support for groups and individuals whose primary interest seems to be to harm the United Kingdom and its citizens. I'm all for talking and indeed dealing with groups who renounce or do not use violence even if their political views aren't ones with which I'm comfortable - plural democracy means a range of views.

    I've never subscribed to the notion "my country, right or wrong". I want the right to question, to scrutinise, to criticise and to call my Government "wrong". That's my democratic right.

    At the same time, I don't want ill to befall us and those whose clear and unequivocal intention is, by violence, to harm this country cannot be condoned or entertained however "noble" they may seem and that's where I part company with Corbyn.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,833
    Mr. L, annulments? :D


  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451

    Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.

    I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.

    The cheek of this young man to put context to serious allegations made against him is OUTRAGEOUS.

  • Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.

    I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.

    Are you surprised?

    The gruesome twosome tried to get a civil servant into trouble for breaking the civil service code’s rules on impartiality.

    The civil servant’s crime ?

    Clashing with Nick Timothy Sending a tweet from his personal account praising the performance on Strictly.

    Yet Mrs May did nothing.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    Elliot said:

    Elliot said:

    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Former EU Commissioner Patten.
    Since you haven’t offered a counter argument, I’ll assume that you haven’t got one.

    If you have one that involves a mad conspiracy theory as your ad hominem might suggest, no need to share.
    He doesn't make an argument for there to be a counter argument. It is just childish name calling and insults to the Brexiteers.

    And no, the fact that he has something of a bias due to his past employment and current pension is not a conspiracy theory.
    As I suspected, a mad conspiracy theory enabling you to avoid addressing any of the uncomfortable points made.

    You can see Brexit shrivel the IQ of otherwise moderately intelligent posters. It’s utterly malign.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451

    TGOHF said:

    Scott_P said:

    Hubris old bean.

    We’ve still got a trade deal to work on.

    One that satisfies both the Jacob Rees-Moggs and Anna Soubrys of this world.

    Its so bollock clenchingly cringeworthy that Patten et al can't see that everytime they open their mouths with a condescending comment about the Uk that they make their chances of reversing Brexit more and more remote.

    Who is advising them on PR ? it's diabolical - unless of course their aim is purely to signal their virtue to the dwindling band of continuity remainers.
    Almost everyone now accepts that the reversing Brexit bird has long since flown. Patten is making some perfectly reasonable suggestions about how to secure as close to a cake-and-eat-it settlement as we could hope,
    I have no argument with him putting his points across - but his patronising tone is once again seriously misjudged.

    Can nobody on Remain make an argument without belittling the other side ?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138
    TGOHF said:

    Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.

    I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.

    The cheek of this young man to put context to serious allegations made against him is OUTRAGEOUS.

    It’s called victimisation. In an employment context, hefty damages would be payable as a result.

    In a political context, it should be career-ending.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 957
    JonathanD said:

    London retains top spot in global ranking:

    http://www.cityam.com/282918/london-remains-top-world-global-financial-services-says/amp?__twitter_impression=true

    Next EU city Frankfurt at number 20....

    But look how fast the other cities are catching up. Almost certainly London will have slipped a couple of places by next year.
    You mean like Frankfurt falling nine places? Those with big jumps are San Francisco, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles. Do you notice anything in common? It appears we need to prioritise a deal in financial services with the USA. Something the French and Romanians would not allow in the EU, as they had red lines in agriculture.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145

    First.

    After I go Cameron Bancroft on Scrapheap’s post.

    I'll have to Jonny Bairstow you if you go full Bancroft.
    Miscue him to deep midwicket ?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,451

    TGOHF said:

    Off topic, it is astounding that Stephen Parkinson has not been sacked. Publicly outing someone in response to whistleblowing is particularly aggressive victimisation.

    I suppose it’s of a piece with the operation that Theresa May supervised before the election with Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. It speaks very badly of Theresa May herself though.

    The cheek of this young man to put context to serious allegations made against him is OUTRAGEOUS.

    It’s called victimisation. In an employment context, hefty damages would be payable as a result.

    In a political context, it should be career-ending.
    We shall await the tribunal then..
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,145
    JWisemann said:

    Usual pompous self-aggrandising nonsense from CF.


    From you, I suspect she'll take that as a compliment.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,670

    Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.

    Naive and exploited by Cadwalladr/Bindmans who ensured the outing got maximum publicity by holding a press conference to denounce it and emphasising the link to the Prime Minister.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,138

    Mr. Meeks, normally I'd agree entirely, but if it's relevant to the potential motive behind the claims, it can't be ignored. Not sure what form (if any) an investigation will take, so perhaps a private disclosure to investigating authorities would've been optimal, but I fear the 'whistleblower' has been naive at best by not anticipating this would come out.

    It would have been entirely possible to have said “we knew each other very well socially as well as professionally”. Outing someone is a form of victimisation. The Leaver defence appears to be that the victim was asking for it.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,222
    RoyalBlue said:

    Russia’s claim to Crimea on grounds of history, language, nationality and self-determination was very strong. There was no good reason to resort to military action, but Putin needed something to pep up his ratings.

    Yes, that's what I principally meant when when I said that the Russians were provoked but their response was grossly disproportionate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,299
    Sean_F said:

    Good job that free owls for all policy never got enacted,

    Owl causes chaos at wedding, attacking best man after delivering rings

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/26/owl-causes-chaos-wedding-attacking-best-man-delivering-rings/

    This happens a lot.

    My son works as a falconer at a place that also happens to be a wedding venue, and he frequently curses whichever idiot dreamed up the idea of owls at weddings. Birds of prey are unpredictable at the best of times and owls are the most truculent of the lot.

    I was just recently at a wedding (Dalhousie Castle) where an owl delivered the ring. It was like something from Harry Potter.
    Mrs J's old company had a Harry Potter themed Christmas Party at the Cambridge Union, complete with 'floating' candles in the air. Messages were delivered to tables using toy owls on strings. Quite a surreal and magic evening.

    And at school, we had a Shakespeare play when it was decided it would be 'cool' to have the King holding some form of raptor (I cannot remember which bird). It was abandoned after the first night when it flew over the audience as planned, but left some rather unplanned deposits on some heads.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,798

    No bandwagon left unjumped upon, though he seems to fall off them quite rapidly.

    Surely Le Pen is not denying the holocaust per se -- just blaming the Germans and exonerating the French. I doubt Paisley has any considered view on the matter. That's the trouble with this guilt by association. X met Y so their beliefs must be identical.
    I doubt Paisley jr has considered views on anything very much. I'd also say that denying the historical fact of one's country's complicity in the Holocaust is a form of Holocaust denial.
    Paisley Jr has an innovative line in turning bad news into good. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come from his Brexiteer friends on the mainland.

This discussion has been closed.