Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Lancebloke]

{{ They do, and sadly they are probably right, at least when it comes to the English who keep voting in Tories for some reason I've never been able to fathom.

Well, many people like that he seems to say what he thinks... a bit like Trump but not quite as extreme.

Many people believe in Conservative principles even though the Tory party doesn't really seem to act them out.

Many others just can't vote for Labour. Corbyn was someone that I couldn't vote for and with people like Dianne Abbott, David Lammy and that Angela Rayner I still don't think i could go that route.

I also can't vote for Boris and people in his team like Rees-Mogg. So where does that leave me? Pretty much with a protest vote or a "lesser of two evils" vote neither of which is useful.

[Mrs Figg]

What about the Lib Dems or Green? I couldn't have voted for Corbyn, him being a Brexiter, and Dianne Abbott just hates white people so it defeats the purpose. They were two useless joke candidates, but Starmer is defo a great improvement, even though he has thrown women under a bus. I dont mind Lammy, he seems sincere, and Rayner is from my ex-town so I have to support her regardless, I also like her sincerity although her delivery leaves a lot to be desired. This current labour lot are an improvement, but they are still not effective in tying this Tory pig to the post.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ If I was stuck in England I'd certainly be looking at Lib-dems, Greens and whoever the independents for my area are before I'd give my vote to the vile corrupt Tories.
Im not a fan of Starmer but I actually have bit more time for Rayner- she is young in her political career but she learns fast and I dont mind her bluntness so long as she can put substance behind it. She's certainly been better than Starmer at holding Boris to account. Besides with Starmer there is just something fundamentally off in a multimillionare being the leader of the party of the working classes. }}

[Mrs Figg]

I just wish that yvette Cooper had become labour leader, she would have annihilated Johnson from day one.

[Lancebloke]

David Lammy has been the same with playing the race card often and loudly. He isn't as bad as Abbott but he is still pretty ridiculous.

And yes, my last vote went to the Yellows but with the understanding it wouldn't make a dent. The Greens are too far Green for my liking.

Corbyn was a piece of wet cardboard who struggled to nail his colours to the fence. If he was like that out of power he would have been useless in power.

Starter is a bit better but I think that is because of the low bar that had been set since Blair left office (and he had plenty of problems that I wouldn't have understood back then).

All I have seen of Rayner that I have paid attention to is her blaming anyone but herself for things that go wrong. A bit like Boris is right now. I wonder if she is too different in her arrogance, but again that is with limited exposure to it all.

[Mrs Figg]

Labour has its problems but it isn't evil and sinister like the Tories. That Coffey blob has blood on her repulsive hands trying to impose slave labour on the unemployed, its disgusting.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ And the official cover up between Tories and MET is complete as predicted-

'The Metropolitan Police has asked senior civil servant Sue Gray to make "minimal reference" to events they are investigating in her report...the Met has asked her to leave out details of parties they are investigating for Covid rule-breaking...it said it wanted to "avoid any prejudice to our investigation". - BBc News

Told you was a stitch up soon as MET got involved. One corrupt institution covering for another corrupt institution. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ So far the SNP are the only party directly calling this out for what it predictably is-

"Sue Gray and the Met are in difficult positions but the sequence of events and the situation arrived at now creates the suspicion - however unfairly - that the process of inquiry is aiding [Boris] Johnson at the expense of public accountability. I doubt Johnson cares about damage to the reputations of others - individuals or institutions - as long as he saves his own skin. But these things matter. Rapid conclusion and full publication of the findings of inquiries is surely now essential for public trust." - Sturgeon

'SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford says many people had called for the Met to investigate sooner and that the situation "does look as if it has been a stitch up" - asking what has changed since Tuesday.
"We were told on Tuesday the Metropolitan Police were comfortable with this report being released," he says. "Much of what has happened here, perhaps not the whole detail, but much of what has happened - the fact parties have been taking place, the fact that Boris Johnson was at some of them - is well known."
He adds that we cannot have a situation where the "salient facts are missing" and the Sue Gray report needs to be published in full.
"What we see today is the prime minister getting away with it again because the Met Police have let him off the hook - this is not acceptable," he says.- BBC News

In response to this odious toad Mogg responded -

"It would be a very eccentric conspiracy theorist who thought that the prime minister being investigated by the police was beneficial to the prime minister."
He adds he knows people get excited about "dead cat strategies" - where an issue is used to distract from another - but says this is a "sort of trophy hunted dead lion being found on the table - which I think is hard to find helpful".

And a couple of legal names have popped up to question the whole thing-

'Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister who's an expert on Covid rules, asks: "How would a factual civil service report about events the police is investigating 'prejudice' their investigation?"
He suggests this whole situation could have been avoided "if police had done the sensible thing" and begun investigating in December.
Nazir Afzal, a former chief Crown prosecutor, makes a similar point on Twitter, saying: "This is absolute nonsense from the Met Police.
"A purely factual report by Sue Gray cannot possibly prejudice a police investigation."

I think at this point Boris is in real danger of making matters worse and worse by not just coming clean, and the only reason I can think of for why he has refused to do so this far, and before it got to this stage, is that it would show he had in fact lied to Parliament, and that's a resigning matter or his own party will push him. So he is trying everything he can think of to make this go away and be kicked off down the line. Probably hoping Putin invades sooner rather than later at this point. }}

[Pettytyrant101]

{Couple of Tory's pitching in now too, in a Tory way, but you have to wonder how many letters for Boris to go have already gone in and how many are like this one wanting the report for their chance to get rid of Boris? Tories are notorious for doing away with their own leaders. }}

Raising a point of order in the House of Commons, Sir Christoper Chope, a Tory MP, says the Metropolitan Police is "usurping its position by seeking to interfere in the affairs of state".
He says: "I thought that it was this House which held the government to account for its policies, and not the Metropolitan Police."
He adds there is "no reason" for the police to be able to require Sue Gray not to issue her report in an unamended way.

'Veteran Tory MP Sir Roger Gale, who is one of the Conservatives to call for Boris Johnson's resignation, says the situation with the Sue Gray report has "all the hallmarks of a Whitehall farce written in Scotland Yard".
"A while back the Met Police were saying they weren't going to investigate, then they said they would investigate and the sigh of relief from Downing Street could be heard in the Palace of Westminster as the can was kicked down the road," he tells BBC Radio 4's The World At One.
"Then they said it would be OK for Sue Gray to publish her report and now this morning they're saying it's not OK, or it is OK but she can't publish anything that anybody is likely to be interested in - which is ridiculous."
He adds that unless there is a "legal barrier" Gray should publish her report "now and in full". - BBC

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ All Starmer has added so far is this-

"The whole of government is paralysed because the police are now looking at what the PM was getting up to in Downing Street," he says.
He says people are worried about cost of living increases while there is a "criminal investigation into the behaviour of the prime minister and what went wrong in Downing Street".

Thats piss weak. Its not that its not true or relevant its that its tame, the subject matter right now is he has a chance to take the scalp of a Tory Prime Minister who is on the ropes, he should be going for blood right now, this should be like wanting to turn away from having to watch bloodbath, like in an Attenborough documentary when the lioness are tearing into the guts of a still kicking and howling antelope. Starmer should be going for Boris's throat right now. It reminds me of a scene in the Thick of It comparing the two parties (although in its case its reversed and the Left are the fired up ones going for blood). Starmer reminds me of the wee Tory guy in it when he should be Malcolm Tucker.}}

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Lib-Dems have joined in-

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "A stitch-up between the Met leadership and No 10 will damage our politics for generations and it looks like it is happening right in front of our eyes."

Put it next to Blackford's-

"This does look as if it's a stitch-up and the only person that benefits from that is Boris Johnson."

next to Starmer's-

"What I want to see is Sue Gray's report in full and the investigation finished as quickly as possible".

And you hear how weak it sounds. There are Tories putting the boot into Boris harder than Starmer is. And those are the soundbites on the news stations, thats what most folk who dont follow politics that closely are going to see and hear. Starmer needs to be doing better than this, I can picture Rayner in the background chomping at the bit and needing to be held back from just doing it herself. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Starmer  he really is a chocolate teapot. mealy-mouthed shiter.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Interesting to think if the MET hadn't chosen to interfere when they did Gray's report would have gone in on Wednesday, and Boris would most likely either have had to resign by now or be facing a leadership election challenge.
Instead he is safe and secure for now as PM. Sometimes the greatest skill and wisdom in politics is not planning to survive till the next election, but just till tomorrow. Then doing that again the next day and the next, and the next. Boris is good at that. }}

[Mrs Figg]

Theresa may did that too.

[Mrs Figg]

[Lancebloke]

What are peoples thoughts on the whole Ukraine situation?

I definitely don't think the Russians are the good guys, but I also think that the "West" are also doing their best to prod them repeatedly in the throat.

I dont really blame them for their current stance and I can only see a consolidation with China and some of the other current "enemies."

[halfwise]

But what is the actual reason for the build up along the Ukrainian border? None is given.

I can understand they don't want border countries joining NATO, but you don't invite a country to come and play in your pool by massing troops along the border. That's not a friendly invitation, it's mafia tactics. But why now?

Whatever is going on, it can't be ignored. There's a delicate dance, and so far the red line of sending troops across a border hasn't been crossed by either side. Putin doesn't like the criticism that's come out of Ukraine, but so far all he's done is act threatening. He may have done more if there wasn't a response.

[Lancebloke]

The build up is probably to force talks given we are now talking about some other countries like Georgia wanting to join NATO.

We agreed that we wouldn't do exactly what we are doing (I believe 7 countiries that we agreed wouldnt join NATO or a new Warsaw Pact are now in NATO) and don't seem to give a shit, then every time Putin puts some troops near Estonia we double down.

Well, now he has put 120,000 troops next to Ukraine and they aren't in NATO and there is a very real threat. So maybe we should stop being the bully and try to elbe more reasonable.

Let's face it, NATO is there specifically to counter Russia, not to work with it and NATO keeps getting bigger.

Or let's just keep poking and find out what the breaking point is.

[halfwise]

That sort of depends on what your reading of the agreement was.

In President Putin's eyes, the West promised back in 1990 that Nato would expand "not an inch to the east" but did so anyway.
That was before the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, so the promise made to then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev only referred to East Germany in the context of a reunified Germany.
Mr Gorbachev said later that "the topic of Nato expansion was never discussed" at the time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56720589

So it's possible to see both sides of this.  I do understand why Russia feels threatened, but these countries were not forced to join NATO.  Putin would do better to make Russia more attractive, though that's an admittedly tall order.

[Lancebloke]

Russia was more open and attractive in the late 90s and seemed to be making progress in opening up which I always felt the West was open to.

Again, I certainly don't see Russia as the good guys in all this. The current regime is clearly very authoritarian and the actions of the administration speak louder than its words.

I think that is the same of the West though. We seem to make no apologies for all of the wars that we get in to in the context of furthering what we think is right (aka oil and money) but are up in arms when others do it or we do it in their backyard.

While it is probably in the long term interests of everyone to stop being dickheads, it definitely isn't in the short term interests of current administrations to look weak. They have to find a way out of this that saves face.

[halfwise]

Ball may be in Ukraine's court: if they make a promise not to join NATO unless Russia crossed their border again, that may keep everyone happy.

But Putin is very sneaky. What he did in the Crimea was a masterclass on cooking frogs. First he planted "little green men" in the Peninsula, then used them to take over the regional parliament during a time of unrest in greater Ukraine, and used the parliament to basically invite in troops. At no time was there a clear red line, so he got away with it. It was as admirable as it was shocking.

But at least Ukraine knows what to expect now, so they may be able to write in something that puts enough of a stranglehold on Putin while returning to the recent the status quo that it may keep everyone happy. I don't think anyone but Ukraine is in a position to do this.

[Pettytyrant101]

{{ Cuban missile crisis. Russia using a proxy country, Cuba, try to put missiles on it near US borders. The result? Almost WW3. Right to the brink. America would not stand for it.

Fast forward to present day and America have been bringing eastern European countries under their wing via NATO and putting US weaponry right along the Russian border - for some reason America thinks rubbing the Russians faces in it and prodding the Russian bear repeatedly with a stick will get to no response. Thats what really stupid here.

The West had a once in a lifetime golden opportunity to bring Eastern Europe and Russia alongside as a friend and ally when the Soviet Union collapsed- a chance to show the hand of friendship, to help in the rebuilding, to form closer political ,social and cultural ties. Instead we used it as an opportunity to keep Russia down wherever possible, to mock their collapse and to use the old parts of the Soviet Union against them.

Also present day- Russia wants Ukraine back, majority of Ukrainians speak Russian, it used to be part of the Soviet Union. Putin may be prepared to use military force to achieve it. Putin an obvious villain and his incursion obviously illegal.

Israel use military force to invade and seize Palestine, they claim the land used to belong to them. They are hailed heroes and given infinite funding and weaponry by America and continued funding as they use military force to drive more Palestinians from their homes and lands and seize them for Israel - obvious heroes and good guys neither Israel or America even accept they are doing anything illegal.

The hypocrisy and short-sightedness in Western foreign policy in general, but the US in particular is shocking.


Much to say on the Boris thing, and NI but Ill hold off as god knows what will have happened by tomorrow. In the meantime some excellent Jonathon Pie and the New York Times, as he attempts to explain whats going on for Americans. }}

[halfwise]

The point about putting weaponry in the new countries is a good one, though I will insist that the simple fact of them joining NATO is not a case of short sighted belligerent policy. Nobody pressured those countries to join, they joined because they were worried that Russia would do to them exactly what it is doing to Ukraine. I have to agree putting weapon systems in the former eastern block countries is hard for Russia to read in any other way other than belligerent, so that was shortsighted.

[Mrs Figg]

The truth Pie style.  

[halfwise]

"Eaton, a sort of Hogwarts for wankers."