That is one misleading headline. Even for a paper as horrible as the Mail.
The police are:-
1. Considering; whether to 2. Review police conduct into police behaviour relating to the drink
So-not actually reviewing Starmer. At all.
If the Tories are able to pressure the police into fining Keir Starmer it would do Boris no harm.
True.
But I suspect that the main aims of this are:-
1. To muddy the waters in relation to the electorate pre-May 5th 2. To force the police to delay issuing more fines until after May 5th 3. As a result of 2 above, delay the Sue Gray report until after May 5th
That is one misleading headline. Even for a paper as horrible as the Mail.
The police are:-
1. Considering; whether to 2. Review police conduct into police behaviour relating to the drink
So-not actually reviewing Starmer. At all.
If the Tories are able to pressure the police into fining Keir Starmer it would do Boris no harm.
True.
But I suspect that the main aims of this are:-
1. To muddy the waters in relation to the electorate pre-May 5th 2. To force the police to delay issuing more fines until after May 5th 3. As a result of 2 above, delay the Sue Gray report until after May 5th
Yes. The last I saw on the Sue Gray report was that it is unlikely to be published before the end of May.
That is one misleading headline. Even for a paper as horrible as the Mail.
The police are:-
1. Considering; whether to 2. Review police conduct into police behaviour relating to the drink
So-not actually reviewing Starmer. At all.
If the Tories are able to pressure the police into fining Keir Starmer it would do Boris no harm.
True.
But I suspect that the main aims of this are:-
1. To muddy the waters in relation to the electorate pre-May 5th 2. To force the police to delay issuing more fines until after May 5th 3. As a result of 2 above, delay the Sue Gray report until after May 5th
Yes. The last I saw on the Sue Gray report was that it is unlikely to be published before the end of May.
The Tories will try and ensure that the report is released when Parliament is not sitting.
So-first aim will be Whitsun break (26/5-6/6). Then to consider whether they can push it to Summer recess at 21/7, when they are scheduled to be off until September.
Incidentally, MPs seem to spend an awful lot of time working from home. While managing to object to anyone else doing the same...
we cant lose Bojo now we need him to stand up to Russia.
I can only assume that you posted the above, because you were under the impression that Boris has stood up to Russia more strongly that an alternative leader may have. I therefore asked a question which you have determinedly ignored.
What do you think that Boris has done in respect of Ukraine, that an alternative PM wouldnt have?
I didnt ask the question to be clever, or a smart ar5e, I asked the question as I was interested in your thoughts that prompted you to post the above.
Many of the general public have had enough of Boris and his lies.
My own thoughts on his response to Putins invasion of Ukraine, are as follows. The response in respect of refugees has been a shambles, that has been widely criticised. Expecting those fleeing bombs, missiles, and bullets, to locate a mortgage statement, or utility bill, on their way out of the door seems absolutely ridiculous. The sanctions in respect of the Russian State gained an initial round of applause when the value of the rouble immediately dropped by 25%. However the exchange rate is now higher than it was pre-invasion. The sanctions on oligarchs were delayed in some cases, allowing them to move some of their money and assets beyond the reach of the authorities. Supplying arms to Ukraine is surely the least we could do.
I am not sure which of the actions that Boris has taken, would not have been taken by another leader, and therefore make Boris indispensable when it comes to standing up to the Russians?
we cant lose Bojo now we need him to stand up to Russia.
I can only assume that you posted the above, because you were under the impression that Boris has stood up to Russia more strongly that an alternative leader may have. I therefore asked a question which you have determinedly ignored.
What do you think that Boris has done in respect of Ukraine, that an alternative PM wouldnt have?
I didnt ask the question to be clever, or a smart ar5e, I asked the question as I was interested in your thoughts that prompted you to post the above.
Many of the general public have had enough of Boris and his lies.
My own thoughts on his response to Putins invasion of Ukraine, are as follows. The response in respect of refugees has been a shambles, that has been widely criticised. Expecting those fleeing bombs, missiles, and bullets, to locate a mortgage statement, or utility bill, on their way out of the door seems absolutely ridiculous. The sanctions in respect of the Russian State gained an initial round of applause when the value of the rouble immediately dropped by 25%. However the exchange rate is now higher than it was pre-invasion. The sanctions on oligarchs were delayed in some cases, allowing them to move some of their money and assets beyond the reach of the authorities. Supplying arms to Ukraine is surely the least we could do.
I am not sure which of the actions that Boris has taken, would not have been taken by another leader, and therefore make Boris indispensable when it comes to standing up to the Russians?
Boris has been unexceptional in relation to Ukraine. By which I mean he has been neither bad nor good.
Something that appears totally beyond the hapless Liz Truss. To quote the old Ipswich Town saying:-"She is Norfolk. And Good..."
There is a fine line between appearing too weak, and too strong therefore provoking World War 3. Which appears to be something that Boris, Keir Starmer, Ben Wallace etc are capable of doing. Whereas Truss seems to flit between the 2 extremes, and miss what is best for the country.
Preferring instead, to do what may be best for Liz Truss.
Sad to see Germany failing to provide leadership and a moral compass for the EU. Something they achieved for many years under Merkel. Consequently, the EU are in disarray on this issue.
we cant lose Bojo now we need him to stand up to Russia.
I can only assume that you posted the above, because you were under the impression that Boris has stood up to Russia more strongly that an alternative leader may have. I therefore asked a question which you have determinedly ignored.
What do you think that Boris has done in respect of Ukraine, that an alternative PM wouldnt have?
I didnt ask the question to be clever, or a smart ar5e, I asked the question as I was interested in your thoughts that prompted you to post the above.
Many of the general public have had enough of Boris and his lies.
My own thoughts on his response to Putins invasion of Ukraine, are as follows. The response in respect of refugees has been a shambles, that has been widely criticised. Expecting those fleeing bombs, missiles, and bullets, to locate a mortgage statement, or utility bill, on their way out of the door seems absolutely ridiculous. The sanctions in respect of the Russian State gained an initial round of applause when the value of the rouble immediately dropped by 25%. However the exchange rate is now higher than it was pre-invasion. The sanctions on oligarchs were delayed in some cases, allowing them to move some of their money and assets beyond the reach of the authorities. Supplying arms to Ukraine is surely the least we could do.
I am not sure which of the actions that Boris has taken, would not have been taken by another leader, and therefore make Boris indispensable when it comes to standing up to the Russians?
Boris has been unexceptional in relation to Ukraine. By which I mean he has been neither bad nor good.
Something that appears totally beyond the hapless Liz Truss. To quote the old Ipswich Town saying:-"She is Norfolk. And Good..."
There is a fine line between appearing too weak, and too strong therefore provoking World War 3. Which appears to be something that Boris, Keir Starmer, Ben Wallace etc are capable of doing. Whereas Truss seems to flit between the 2 extremes, and miss what is best for the country.
Preferring instead, to do what may be best for Liz Truss.
Sad to see Germany failing to provide leadership and a moral compass for the EU. Something they achieved for many years under Merkel. Consequently, the EU are in disarray on this issue.
I wouldnt disagree with any of that.
I havent followed it very closely, but I find some of the logic difficult to follow.
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 resulted in sanctions. They seemed to have survived quite happily since then, despite the sanctions. I suppose you could argue that if those sanctions had worked, we wouldnt be where we are today. The latest sanctions may be more stringent, though not insurmountable, as they seem to have been able to take measures to offset at least some of the difficulties created by the sanctions. We have avoided more involved help, like creating a no-fly zone, which would have saved lives, to avoid World War 3. If Ukraine was a NATO member we would automatically be dragged into the conflict. They are not members, so we arent. Putin says he wont allow them to become members. I can see why we wish to limit our assistance, but it just doesnt seem right. Despite all this Putin still threatens the use of nuclear weapons, and World War 3.
If the purpose of the sanctions is to turn the Russian people against the leadership, then they have to be extreme. The more extreme they are, the quicker they are likely to succeed. McDonalds closing all their restaurants in Russia is one thing, but paying all their staff is ridiculous. Getting paid for not working is hardly a great hardship, that is likely to turn you against the leadership. We shouldnt be arguing over Russian tennis players, playing at Wimbledon.
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/fines-fury-and-backbench-panic-how-political-chaos-followed-johnson-to-india/ar-AAWwXZR?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=e486a23116c84908bce6c5713dd53ada
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnson-news-live-angela-040152602.html
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/editorpicks/voices-it-s-time-to-ditch-boris-johnson-the-king-of-chaos/ar-AAWz8aM?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fda6621327154c68be6748f09bb9512f
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/convict-spluttered-truths-own-choosing-173452394.html
The police are:-
1. Considering; whether to
2. Review police conduct into police behaviour relating to the drink
So-not actually reviewing Starmer. At all.
But I suspect that the main aims of this are:-
1. To muddy the waters in relation to the electorate pre-May 5th
2. To force the police to delay issuing more fines until after May 5th
3. As a result of 2 above, delay the Sue Gray report until after May 5th
The last I saw on the Sue Gray report was that it is unlikely to be published before the end of May.
So-first aim will be Whitsun break (26/5-6/6). Then to consider whether they can push it to Summer recess at 21/7, when they are scheduled to be off until September.
Incidentally, MPs seem to spend an awful lot of time working from home. While managing to object to anyone else doing the same...
I can only assume that you posted the above, because you were under the impression that Boris has stood up to Russia more strongly that an alternative leader may have.
I therefore asked a question which you have determinedly ignored.
What do you think that Boris has done in respect of Ukraine, that an alternative PM wouldnt have?
I didnt ask the question to be clever, or a smart ar5e, I asked the question as I was interested in your thoughts that prompted you to post the above.
Many of the general public have had enough of Boris and his lies.
My own thoughts on his response to Putins invasion of Ukraine, are as follows.
The response in respect of refugees has been a shambles, that has been widely criticised.
Expecting those fleeing bombs, missiles, and bullets, to locate a mortgage statement, or utility bill, on their way out of the door seems absolutely ridiculous.
The sanctions in respect of the Russian State gained an initial round of applause when the value of the rouble immediately dropped by 25%.
However the exchange rate is now higher than it was pre-invasion.
The sanctions on oligarchs were delayed in some cases, allowing them to move some of their money and assets beyond the reach of the authorities.
Supplying arms to Ukraine is surely the least we could do.
I am not sure which of the actions that Boris has taken, would not have been taken by another leader, and therefore make Boris indispensable when it comes to standing up to the Russians?
Something that appears totally beyond the hapless Liz Truss. To quote the old Ipswich Town saying:-"She is Norfolk. And Good..."
There is a fine line between appearing too weak, and too strong therefore provoking World War 3. Which appears to be something that Boris, Keir Starmer, Ben Wallace etc are capable of doing. Whereas Truss seems to flit between the 2 extremes, and miss what is best for the country.
Preferring instead, to do what may be best for Liz Truss.
Sad to see Germany failing to provide leadership and a moral compass for the EU. Something they achieved for many years under Merkel. Consequently, the EU are in disarray on this issue.
Liz Truss.
Here's her Twitter feed. Have a quick scroll back a week or two & count how many times she manages to find ways to post a photo of herself.
https://twitter.com/trussliz
Even when laying a wreath to commemorate the war dead, she manages to turn it into a Liz Truss show reel, with 3 photos of herself.
It is awfully difficult to find anything to like about her.
I havent followed it very closely, but I find some of the logic difficult to follow.
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 resulted in sanctions.
They seemed to have survived quite happily since then, despite the sanctions.
I suppose you could argue that if those sanctions had worked, we wouldnt be where we are today.
The latest sanctions may be more stringent, though not insurmountable, as they seem to have been able to take measures to offset at least some of the difficulties created by the sanctions.
We have avoided more involved help, like creating a no-fly zone, which would have saved lives, to avoid World War 3.
If Ukraine was a NATO member we would automatically be dragged into the conflict.
They are not members, so we arent.
Putin says he wont allow them to become members.
I can see why we wish to limit our assistance, but it just doesnt seem right.
Despite all this Putin still threatens the use of nuclear weapons, and World War 3.
If the purpose of the sanctions is to turn the Russian people against the leadership, then they have to be extreme.
The more extreme they are, the quicker they are likely to succeed.
McDonalds closing all their restaurants in Russia is one thing, but paying all their staff is ridiculous.
Getting paid for not working is hardly a great hardship, that is likely to turn you against the leadership.
We shouldnt be arguing over Russian tennis players, playing at Wimbledon.