Johnson fired his other brains, Dominic Cummings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Printable View
Johnson fired his other brains, Dominic Cummings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
It's just occurred to me, watching the latest Jonathan Pie, that our Lords is mostly Commons appointees, while the leader of the elected Commons is the descendant of a Turkish aristocrat.
i think we can all agree that Cummings is in a class all of his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
brilliant, yes, but a loose cannon with no concept of discretion.
Maybe not brilliant, but our PM is also known to be a loose cannon with no concept of discretion. The security services advised our then PM (Theresa May) not to give her foreign secretary the normal access to state secrets, as he couldn't be trusted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Keir Starmer rescued by police after being mobbed by anti-vaxxers outside Parliament
This is the kind of politics the PM has brought to the UK. Despite people urging him not to use that attack line because it was false. How long will Johnson remain PM?Quote:
Officers were forced to step in and take the Labour leader to safety as the crowd shouted abuse and false claims about Jimmy Savile
The PM's new director of communications is a Huawei lobbyist, who's directly lobbied no.10 before for that company. Security clearance for that level normally takes weeks even when accelerated, but it's been waived for someone who works for a company that the security services deem a threat to the country.
Do people really hate the EU that much that they'd rather sell out the country to China than to have any kind of links with Europe?
The first paragraph - completely valid. Not exactly a new problem - and one that has not been addressed for decades. We celebrate the Queen being present for 70 years. But she was present for this entire time. Perhaps she might not have been able to stop the rot - but as things stand it appears she hasn't even tried.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Second paragraph - aaaaaand you're back.
~:smoking:
Ian Paisley Jr: "Maybe the Conservative and Unionist Party is actually a nationalist party. An English nationalist Party."
Ian Paisley Jr, DUP MP, speaking on the lack of concern of the British PM for the divided Northern Ireland community.
we can accept that it was a crass remark without needing to jump the shark in suggesting that he coordinated it with 'the fascist right', otherwise we'll have to blame Boris for the same thing happening to Gove'y last year:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://twitter.com/PetroNicolaides/...14495979728897
It's what insiders, including "Boris's Brain", said happened. Should we dismiss these primary sources?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
New Brexit Opportunities Minister is major shareholder in company that would be a major beneficiary of policies to be decided by the Brexit Opportunities Minister.
Cutting out the middle man. Don't need lobbyists if you're directly channelling money to yourself.
I'm pretty sure the paeadothilliae meme is of American origin. Unfortunately our brain worms have contaminated the far-rights of the world over the past few years (e.g. the popularity of Q-Anon among the right in Germany and Japan.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Our far rights used to hark back to the European far right: fascists, Nazis, and so on. It was easy to discredit these hankerers after a vision that we'd fought against. Nowadays, our far right looks to the American far right for inspiration. Their supporters dismiss any description of them as far right by pointing out that they are nothing like neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, and so on. No they're not. It's Q-Anon, Proud Boys, Trumpians, etc. that are their model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
This is really good - well worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g75OIszvopk
Complicated stuff - definately not reducable to a soundbite.
And the Tories' Attorney General (their top legal advisor) confirms that democracy trumps law. If the PM is found to have broken the law, we should recognise that democracy is the foundation of law, she says.
"I would just say that fundamental to the rule of law is also democracy: and I'm very proud to be supporting this prime minister, a prime minister who's honoured democracy by delivering Brexit."
So delivering Brexit absolves the PM from breaking the law if he's found to have broken it, says the Tories' top legal expert. I wonder if rory rolls his eyes whenever the Tories hold up Brexit as a thing to be proud of, whatever the question actually was. Or whether the mockery only pertains the other way.
It is possible to share the same view as someone whilst viewing them with contempt. As I've said repeatedly, I was for Brexit but not for the Tories; equally there is nothing in the EU that would have stopped Boris doing what he's done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Politicians failing to answer questions is hardly a new phenomenon, nor the senior lawyer making the law fit the demands of the PM - as Tony Blair's stooge showed us.
As we celebrate 70 years of the Queen passively allowing the rot to worsen I do wonder why living a long time is more highly thought of than trying to make the state fu ctuon better.
~:smoking:
I didn't say that the EU would have stopped Johnson from doing what he was doing. I merely pointed out that you rolled your eyes when I said that, in the eyes of the Tories, Brexit justifies everything. I didn't make everything about Brexit, as you were implying. I was pointing to how the Tories think, and the AG Braverman demonstrated in her own words what I was saying. Law is trumped by the will of the people, which is founded on Brexit.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
That is what one person said, not what a judge found. A soundbite, not a ruling.
~:smoking:
You mean governments should not respect the law until it's imposed on them by the courts? One would expect governments to work within the law, not do whatever they think they can get away with until grown ups force them to recognise that they can't get away with it any more. Especially since the one person saying it isn't any random person, but supposedly the top legal brain in government. If it's ok for the chief legal advisor to advocate doing whatever they can until the courts stop them, I don't see how it's any better than what Giuliani and co were doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
As I have been bemoaning for some time this is surely a point where the Monarchy should step in given every other part of our bodge job of a system has failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Failing that the police should investigate and arrest if required. Which - with extreme reluctance - they are.
So I yes it is a media statement and holds no weight. Does anyone believe them?
~:smoking:
I hope the system corrects itself and the British voters start believing that the top politicians should be held accountable. The problem is I see the US far right has brought their politics here, gaming the system by solidifying a base and then manipulating everything surrounding the democracy to get enough votes to win, and then using that to further manipulate the system and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I think one of the things that needs to be looked at is the right wing news media, which have pretty much completely abandoned journalistic standards, and strengthening the BBC to question the establishment without fear of extinction. If the Tories, who have shown themselves completely unbound by ethics, have complete support from most of the right wing media in their dissemination of lies, we don't have an informed electorate. And a democracy without an informed electorate isn't a functioning democracy.
More from the top legal mind in the UK government:
"our Parliament must retrieve power ceded to another place – the courts" - Suella Braverman, currently Attorney General.
Another gem. Braverman defends the democratic credibility of the European Research Group, pointing out that it's funded by public money and everything. She then refuses to reveal who's in it, meaning the ERG is funded by public money but is not publicly accountable. According to our current Attorney General.
Does accountability and democracy begin and end with the size of the Commons majority?
Sadly she seems too knowledgeable for this to be ignorance. And is more Operation Red Meat as opposed to reality - the Courts can only rule on the law. If the Commons want they can make new laws. Y'know, as they do when the GCHQ etc break the law, they appeal it and in the meantime pass another law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I would even go as far as to say with our "unwritten" hodgepodge of common law, it is an accepted norm that the interpretation of existing laws does slowly drift over time - decades ago swearing at the police would be a crime, now such language is common enough that this (generally) is not itself an offence; [insert group] shaming, however, is increasingly being found to be a crime; where free speech ends and offense of other starts is another arena where the courts have given their view but of course the Government is within its rights to specify more concretely.
In essence, this whole issue is basically a symptom of the Commons passing poorly thought out and poorly written laws over a course of years often with more eyes on headlines than what exactly they will do or how they fit with existing laws.
~:smoking:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/11/boris...gate-16089867/Quote:
Boris Johnson is expected to appoint his own private lawyer if he receives a questionnaire from the police over alleged breaches of lockdown rules.
The lawyer will focus on his ‘unique’ legal situation – that No 10 is both his home and workplace, according to the Times.
Fair enough. There can't have been many people working from home during the lockdown period. Apart from the rest of the country, that is.
PM gives thumbs up from cockpit of RAF jet in yet ANOTHER photo op that appears straight out of North Korean ruler's propaganda playbook
From wiki, RAF Waddington:Quote:
Boris Johnson was today caught pulling yet another Kim Jong-un style pose, as he gave a thumbs up from the cockpit of an RAF fighter jet.
The Prime Minister has a long back catalogue of shots that appear to be straight out of the North Korean ruler's propaganda playbook... tempting the moniker 'Kim John-son'.
Today he was on a visit to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire, where he met with servicemen and discussed the approach of Storm Eunice.
Wearing a suit and tie, he took the chance to try out some of the military hardware himself - just like Kim himself on a visit to an airfield in 2014.
It was another heavily stage-managed photo opportunity with an army of apparatchiks that serves the same purpose whether you are a dynastic Communist dictator or the elected leader of the United Kingdom.
Kim, in his role as Supreme Leader of the so-called Hermit Kingdom, is fond of 'field guidance' visits in which he is typically shown walking around a construction site, field or factory while issuing diktats to obliging lackeys.
Boris may not enjoy the same level of obedience from his aides, but is never-the-less partial to site visits of his own and is regularly photographed in factories and field giving his own form of 'guidance' to workers... as MailOnline's gallery below shows.
NB. RAF Waddington is a station dedicated to surveillance. It serves surveillance aircraft. Johnson climbed into a Typhoon fighter on a visit to Waddington. Which meant the Typhoon was specially flown to Waddington so that the PM could have his photo op. At a time when Russian planes have been buzzing our air space.Quote:
Royal Air Force Waddington otherwise known as RAF Waddington (IATA: WTN, ICAO: EGXW) is a Royal Air Force station located beside the village of Waddington, 4.2 miles (6.8 km) south of Lincoln, Lincolnshire in England.
The station is the RAF's Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) hub and is home to a fleet of aircraft composed of the Shadow R1, RC-135W Rivet Joint and operating base for the RAF's MQ-9 Reaper.
And yet he endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him.
I haven't heard many good things about Starmer's Labour, and this certainly doesn't help.
Quote:
Steve Reed interview: Labour 'cared more about criminals than victims' under Corbyn
Labour “cared more about criminals than their victims” under Jeremy Corbyn, the party’s new justice chief claims today.
Steve Reed, a shadow minister under the last leader, branded the Tories “soft on crime” as he launched a bid to harden Labour ’s message on law and order.
Quote:
Keir Starmer said last month he is against decriminalising drugs, despite calls to relax the law on substances like cannabis.
Mr Reed highlighted a scheme naming and shaming people who are convicted of buying drugs, that ran in Brixton while he was leader of Lambeth Council.
Asked if the same could happen under a Labour government he replied: “We’d absolutely look at it. It’s important you do it with each locality because they understand what their needs are.
“We wanted to send out the signal that, if you think it’s acceptable to come and buy drugs here, and leave behind you the trail of destruction the drugs trade causes on our streets, we will do everything we can to stop you and we will let your friends, family and employers know what you’ve done.”
Quote:
‘Shoot terrorists first and ask questions later’, says Labour’s Angela Rayner
Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner has said Britain’s terror police should “shoot first” and “ask questions second”, as the party sets out its credentials on law and order.
The senior figure distanced herself from Jeremy Corbyn’s approach to criminal justice issues, saying she was on a “different page” to the former Labour leader.
“On things like law and order I am quite hardline. I am like, shoot your terrorists and ask questions second,” Ms Rayner told Matt Forde’s Political Party podcast.
Apparently taken aback by the audience reaction at the live event, the Labour deputy added: “Sorry – is that the most controversial thing I’ve ever said?”
Sir Keir Starmer’s party is using this week’s parliamentary recess to set out a tougher approach on crime.
Earlier this week the Labour leader has accused the Conservatives of being “soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime” by failing to tackle violence and to provide enough opportunities for young people.
Quote:
She added: “I want you to beat down the door of the criminals and sort them out and antagonise them. That’s what I say to my local police … three o’clock in the morning and antagonise them.”
Ms Rayner said she was “plagued by anti-social behaviour” when she was growing up. “It’s the usual suspects … I want the police to annoy the hell out of them until they realise disrupting lives is not OK. I am quite hardline on that.”
Isn't this just insulting to the intelligence of all and sundry?
It depends what colour rosette you wear. If you wear red, then what Raynor said is an offence to human rights and will lose the support of all right minded liberals. If you're wearing a blue rosette, then it's reaffirming the party of law and order and will win the votes of the working class.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
What I can tell you is that the political talking class will take offence at what Raynor said, and declare that Labour is no longer the party for them. But they are outnumbered by the casual voters, who won't vote Labour unless they take the view that Raynor is espousing.
Is it that you think of the policies implied by the rhetoric as effective and appropriate means to reducing crime, or that the casual voters who currently reject Labour will interpret it as a dealmaking answer to their problems rather than as comical pandering?
Because I'm unsure if contemporary Republicans would take such messaging seriously, and their elected officials are currently demonizing as a murderer someone who worked to exonerate wrongful convictions.
What do you think of this phrase? "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The liberal left has a reputation for caring more about the rights of criminals than victims. The previous Labour leader has a deserved reputation for siding with other countries in disputes involving Britain. Including with terrorists.
To be considered electable, Labour has to stand tough on crime, those who perpetrate it, and so on. Those who argue on theoretical rights don't like it, and frequently say that this is a line crossed. But it is accepted political reality, demonstrated in practice, that Labour has to take that stance in order to be considered acceptable by the majority of voters. See that line above for a more nuanced take on it, but which contains that hardline approach all the same.
The above has been confirmed. One of the planes was flown from a nearby base, another was flown in from Scotland, so that the PM could have his photo op. How much money has been wasted, and how much is our security being compromised, to shore up Johnson's political fortunes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You didn't answer the question, and I very much doubt that making counterterrorism an extra-free-fire operation, police going out of their way to "annoy" "anti-social" people, publicly shaming drug users, or doubling down on marijuana criminalization can seriously be argued as either tough on crime or tough on its causes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
But maybe one would argue that regardless of the integrity of such rhetoric, it is something most voters are eager to hear. In which case the folly of the public is to be exploited to electoral advantage. Now, to the extent you would hold this presumption (for argument's sake let's treat it as correct), I detect a basic tension between it and your lament that "And yet [Johnson] endures, and people will still find excuses to vote for him."
Don't you think?
If it is "accepted political reality" that the aforesaid rhetoric is demanded by the majority of voters, then why would you be surprised that they prefer what the Conservatives have to give them regardless of their record? Any voter so softheaded as to entrust their security to a politician on the basis of such a frivolously-spiteful farrago as unleashed by the shadow government already has what they need from the genuine article currently in government.
:thinking2:
Erm, 1997. You post some pointed questions and wonder if the voters are so soft-headed to fall for this and that. I point to past successful electoral strategy. I have no idea whether the arguments I've posited make sense to you (or me for that matter). I only know that they make sense to British voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
It's best not to introduce too many different questions. In this reply alone, we're adding:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
1. What role did Blair Labour's rhetoric or platform on crime play in its 1997 victory?
2. If there was a successful strategy previously, is the quoted rhetoric from Starmer's Labour credibly instantiating it?
These are deep questions, to add to those of good policy and good platform across the board today. But I don't get the impression that Labour leadership is trying to position itself in a calculated rather than reflexive way. I'm no longer so naive as to think that identifying social problems and proposing well-constructed recourses against them will garner recognition, but this conceit of "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" as a frontpiece is just Labour whistling past the graveyard. Lemme lay down a real political reality on you: When anyone can see that the government is not doing jack diddly about crime (promising to shoot terrorists gooder is not an anti-crime proposal), people notice, and it's left-wing, not right-wing, parties get blamed. They can have identical policies to their right-wing counterpart, but only they will be blamed for the lack of effect.
But let's drill down to the only question I want you to answer, here. The sentences I quoted from Labour are ludicrous. You attest that they are popular. Why should one expect people allegedly comforted by the obviously insubstantive and condescending posturing undertaken in the quotes not to be more impressed by Boris Johnson's fighter jet photoshoot or clubby ramblings, or rather to be fatally offended by his... indiscretions? He's much better poised in this territory you know.
Firstly, and I don't think I explained well enough in my previous answer, much of UK politics is box ticking. The Tories by default have some boxes ticked, Labour by default have some other boxes ticked. The Tories have the advantage of having their boxes deemed more important by the voters, and a super majority of the media are also heavily biased towards the Tories. The party that has the most boxes ticked, weighted by importance, will have the advantage with swing voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Johnson has the huge advantage of being a shameless liar. Which means he will promise everything to everyone, thus ticking all boxes. Does it matter that he is a liar and repeatedly and concretely proven so? I don't know. I've asked many, many times, why he is not held to account for promises like 350 million per week for the NHS, but you can see for yourself how excuses are made, that other, more nebulous issues that can never be measured are somehow more important. Is this representative of the British voters? I don't know.
Also, I'm told that Rayner's quote was part of a wider interview, that the quote was meant to illustrate how people can't simply be categorised as left or right. I don't know myself, not having listened to or read the entire interview.
tee-hee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
https://youtu.be/0kZ03v019rg?t=353
I understand the principle of it. What I'm trying to say is, it doesn't make sense to worry about the British voter being susceptible to cheap talk and bluster, obtuse to scandal and corruption, if you're also trying to win them over with cheap talk and bluster - that nevertheless the other side has a provably superior competency in. If one expects the British people to crave bullshit of the sort the Deputy Leader indulged in, Boris Johnson is a vastly-superior bullshitter than Starmer and team has ever been revealed to be. Labour can't out-Brawndo Boris Johnson (though perhaps they could stick him sufficiently unlikeable, but that's a grassroots matter).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Imagine:
John Q Public: "What will the government do about crime?"
Politician: "Let's out the dirty weed-huffing hippies on the village square. For the greater good."
JQP: "I am reassured by this reasoned and well-developed answer to our problems."
If the above is taken as an accurate reflection of the electorate's condition (or an influential segment thereof), one can hardly expect JQP to be in the market for staid, accountable government in other contexts.
You should really be hoping this isn't an accurate picture of boxes to tick, not in this manner. Or you're... whatever the British slang for 'not in a good condition' is.
As the video alerts us, the extra funding (mostly temporary pandemic stimulus AFAIK) is unrelated to Brexit, and is barely keeping pace with growth in demand and population, let alone reversing Cameron/May cuts to the NHS, which has become infamously overburdened. And - I can't help but note that the Blair era, for all the criticisms of its healthcare policy, saw hefty funding increases pushed to the NHS. Leaving this as a promise kept at Johnson's feet is a bit like giving Trump credit for vowing to put less priority on cutting Medicare and Social Security than the Republican establishment did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Box ticking is not necessarily a bad thing. Done in the right way, it can be a good thing. Hence my citing of "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." Labour has to be seen to be tough on criminals and not favouring them in the justice system. In the case of Rayner, who grew up in a rough area (as did I), people would be justifiably peeved with any politician who favoured theoretical discussions of rights over safeguarding them from harm. But Blair paired that with being tough on the causes of crime, ie. working on the economic and social deprivation that fostered crime in working class communities. And thus the numbers of police grew under Labour, crime fell under Labour, and poverty fell under Labour. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, measurable by metrics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
If you disregard these successes, and demand that Labour offer a plarform that's philosophically sound and consistent to you, you're demanding something that most of the population has no interest in. Especially if you dismiss the tough on crime bit, which most of the population are definitely interested in. Go to a council estate, and ask them whether they're more interested in civil rights or less crime.
Sure, but the framing of the argument against boris/brexit isn't nuanced [in any way], it starts and stops with the shrill wailing of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
"LIAR, WHERE IS THE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILLION? LIAR!"
Nothing more need be said when the question is framed thus.
"There is your money."
I have no problem with the nuance of the matter, but we are beyond such petty considerations in the public realm.
The PM lies, again, this time about Roman Abramovich. Labour MP tries to correct him, and asks the PM to stay for just a moment longer for this. PM gives one look back, then continues walking out.
Do we have a Parliamentary democracy?
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status...25761870340104
Boris Johnson walks out on Chris Bryant.
"I hope the PM can just stay for a brief moment, as it relates to what he said about Roman Abramovich. (Johnson looks back, then continues walking) I don't think that's a courtesy to the house when the Prime Minister leaves in that way... "
Is there any excuse for this?
Layla Moran names 35 Russian oligarchs who should be sanctioned, including one that the PM lied about yesterday. 7 cabinet members have received Russian money, including the deputy PM (the supposed no.2) and the chancellor (the actual no.2). Foreign secretary excuses it by saying that Russian influence is part of the UK political system.
Just how compromised is this government by a country which we should have been suspicious of, and that is now openly showing to be hostile?
Compared to who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
To be clear - i want to see an end of this money too, if only because i don't want london to facilitate the accumulation of money sourced from russian corruption.
But the implication here is that this money is buying influence in foriegn policy with regards to Russia, and I simply don't see any evidence of that. UK is among the the most hawkish of european nations when it comes to actions that hinder Russia's own foriegn policy goals.
Russia's primary foreign policy goal in the past 10 years is to weaken the western bloc so that it is free to do whatever it likes. Detach individual western states from their alliances so Russia does not face a unified opposition. The UK, and in particular the Tories, are more hostile towards the EU than towards Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Photo of the current foreign secretary and then PM May with Russian donor who gave 1.8 million to the Tory party, making her one of the biggest female donors to the Tories. Said donor is married to man with close links with Kremlin. Several other (former and current) female cabinet members in that photo.
Back in the day, this would be a matter for resignation. Certainly a matter for surveillance and should be nowhere near cabinet.
To address the substance of your question, with donations being toward party organizations in the UK and not typically toward individual candidates (IIRC), it's doubtful that oligarchs, lobbyists, or anyone else are trying to induce formally pro-Russian foreign policy out of UK governance. Russia's priority has instead repeatedly been to sustain corruption and undermine political stability (though if the pro-Russian domestic constituency were as large as the anti-EU one in the UK of course the Russians would have leveraged it by now). Russian commercial interests must care more about special visas and loose money laundering rules than Ukraine policy, which is more transparent (and also inconsequential to them personally). Sustaining a certain behavior rather than changing courseQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
(Maybe Starmer could up his game and accuse Johnson of defunding the police for allowing the National Crime Agency's real budget to decline and financial crime prosecutions to plummet.)
And it's pretty likely the specified Russian priorities can be better enabled by supporting Conservatives over Labour. What happens with the Economic Crime Bil, huh? Lack of action from this point on would implictly affirm the governing party's ideological or self-interested stake in maintaining the 'free port' of the UK's financial and property markets.
One of the EU laws coming in at the time that we took ourselves out of the EU was one requiring transparency of finance. Which strikes at the money laundering that benefits much of the super rich in the UK or who conduct their operations in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Brexit primarily concretely benefits the dirty money economy. Which is good for Russia two-fold: firstly it makes the UK a safe place to dump their money, and secondly it weakens both the UK (severely) and the EU. Hence the willingness of Russia to invest in this (cf. Aaron Banks and those bot factories operating from Russia). Although I'd call the willingness of UK agents to take their money and hide their impact treasonous. The Commons committee on intelligence and security found that the UK government found no evidence of Russian involvement in Brexit because they actively avoided looking for it. Be wary of any explanation that's worded along the lines of "I am not aware that..."
How has Russian money achieved this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
In British PM race, a former Russian tycoon quietly wields influence
How compromised is our government?Quote:
Publicly, industrialist and Conservative Party donor Alexander Temerko presents himself as an opponent of Brexit and a dissident critic of Vladimir Putin. In conversations with this reporter, he’s voiced strong support for Boris Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, praised senior Russian intelligence officials and spoken about his past work with the Kremlin.
For almost a decade, Alexander Temerko, who forged a career at the top of the Russian arms industry and had connections at the highest levels of the Kremlin, has been an influential figure in British politics. He’s one of the Conservative Party’s major donors. He counts Boris Johnson, the frontrunner to be Britain’s next PM, among his friends.
Temerko, born in what was then Soviet Ukraine, presents himself in public as an entrepreneur who opposes Britain’s departure from the European Union because it’s bad for his UK energy business, and as a dissident critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But in more than half a dozen conversations with this reporter, conducted over the past three years as part of research for a book, he showed a different side of his career and views.
Temerko revealed himself to be a supporter of Johnson’s bid to lead Britain out of the EU, describing the 2016 public vote to leave the bloc as a “revolution against bureaucracy.” He praised senior Russian security officials, including the current and former heads of the Federal Security Service (FSB), successor to the KGB, and proudly recalled his past work with Russia’s Defence Ministry.
These new insights into Temerko’s private thinking about Johnson, Brexit and Russia come as the ruling Conservative Party is choosing its next leader, and as some British MPs are increasingly wary of possible Russian influence over British politics.
Indeed, how compromised is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
RT cites Nigel Farage as someone who doesn't lay the blame entirely at Russia's feet, but says that the west is partly to blame.
What's that about funding and influence?
who cares what farage thinks?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
-----------------------------
[UPDATE] - i keep asking what (foriegn) policy effect all that money sloshing around the british political system is having, and i have found it!
not foriegn policy directly, but its the british anti-fracking dilberts:
https://twitter.com/mattwridley/stat...63130719760389
Europe is blocking removing Russia from the SWIFT payment system so they can continue to buy Russian oil and gas.
That is a far more important factor as currently the EU are directly paying for the war.
~:smoking:
Not much we can directly do about them. We're not part of them. Farage is a UK citizen who's been extremely influential in our politics, and it's clear that he's in Russian pay. Forgive me if I want to highlight Russian agents amongst us.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Is it really worth it to pay a nobody like Farage? In my opinion, that's just his own initiative, a desperate attempt to become relevant again, by differentiating himself from the mainstream opinion and approaching the anti-establishment crowd. Obviously, sympathy towards Russia is a minority feeling in the United Kingdom, but for small fish like Farage, it might be better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
UK imposes sanctions on Russian banks. But gives their biggest bank 30 days in which to withdraw their assets.
What's the point? Does it really merit the label of "sanctions"?
I'm not a banker but I would have thought that - just like with the 2008 crisis - it is equally liquidity that matters and if the banks can't trade with those outside the country it would still bite. And unless the banks have gold bullion or other physical assets, they can (and probably did) withdraw as much as they were able to within seconds of the S word was mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Why afford them the gap at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
So the oligarchs are allowed to keep their UK assets. It should be noted that the Tory party has been receiving money from those prominent Russian donors as recently as late last year, and Tory ministers (including the foreign secretary) have said that there is nothing untoward about it, and that they will not be handing that money back.
This Tory government is funded by Russian top brass, and unashamedly so.
what has Russia bought for its money?
i think this is about the fourth time i have asked.
Which law would enable the confiscation of these assets? Or is it just a crime to be a rich Russian? Does UK law apply in other sovereign state now? Bring back the Star Court... And this does raise the question of why the UK didn't do this in any other case where something illegal happened. The rule of law when it suits I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And then if these assets were to be taken, what would stop all UK assets being taken in Russia - not to mention court cases here and abroad.
Truly, an approach stolen from the headlines of the Daily Mail.
~:smoking:
The UK government proudly announced sanctions against 5 Russian banks and 3 Russian oligarchs at the start of all this, so it's not a matter of principle; it was possible, as they'd shown. The French government is seizing assets I think, so it's not outlandish as far as western European law goes. And at the very least, those on the Navalny list should be targeted, with some of them already internationally sanctioned even before this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Also, what do you think of the money from Russian oligarchs paid to the Tory party? Cleverly and Truss, among others, have said that there is nothing untoward about this, and that they're not handing it back. Is there a law against this as well, or a matter of principle? Chernukhin, she who paid 150k for a tennis match with Boris Johnson, and she who's married to a former Putin minister, donated something like 80k to the Tories late last year. Do you think this is completely above board? Or the other Russian donors to the Tory party, none of whom faced any sanctions at the time the Tory government boasted it was leading the way against Russia (but other oligarchs who hadn't recently donated to the Tories did face sanctions).
All completely above board, despite inconsistencies in application of nebulous principles. All is ok as long as you pay the Tory party.
I'm unclear who exactly you are expecting to defend the Tory party. They're bad. I don't like them. What they did is only legal since they and their kind make the laws. They maintain power by being marginally more electable than labour. The same Labour who had eleven MPs who signed a letter blaming NATO on the situation in Ukraine. They are realistically the two options our system allows. And we celebrate our Head of State overseeing this for 70 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And doing a few illegal things is hardly a framework for doing many illegal things - Blair's war in Iraq hardly created a common law framework for what he did.
~:smoking:
So the Tory government gets to boast about the few sanctions they imposed, lying about their leading the world in this as they always do, whilst not laying a hand on those who've been giving them money. Party above country, supposed principles being held to explain their MO of helping their friends whilst screwing the country over.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The register of foreign owned property won't come into place until autumn 2023 at the earliest, plenty of time for oligarchs to dispose of their properties and move their assets back to somewhere unreachable. Thanks to Navalny, we know of at least some of these oligarch-owned properties. Which are untouched even now.
How about we just take it for granted that the Tory government undertakes selfish acts for either survival or monetary gain and we can view things that diverge from this as "newsworthy". This is getting about as fruitful as posting about every single shooting incident in the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
Now they're preparing to seize oligarch assets. So not doing so before wasn't due to some inalienable principle after all, but just a matter of them choosing not to do so.
BBC Reality CheckQuote:
At Prime Minister's Questions, Boris Johnson told MPs the actions the UK had taken in response to the invasion of Ukraine "are having an effect in Moscow".
He said the UK had sanctioned "275 individuals already, a further 100 last week, the impact is being felt".
Mr Johnson has referred to the 100 figure several times in the past week. But when Reality Check asked for the names of the 100, the government could not provide them and said: "We'll let you know as soon as we have further details to add."
Instead, it sent a list of every person and company currently sanctioned by the UK, including people from Iran and North Korea. It shows that 15 individuals have been sanctioned in the past week:
Claim by PM in Parliament: 100
Reality as checked: 15
Nothing this Tory government says can be trusted.
So much for me taking the government's word at taking new action. It turns out the UK is one of the countries with the fewest effective sanctions against Russia. Despite the claims of the Chief Liar and his acolytes, the EU leads the way with sanctions against nearly 500 entities, with Canada, Australia and Switzerland also around 400. The US has sanctions against over 100. The UK has sanctions against 16.
The Tory government needs to answer questions on oath about the Russian money they've been receiving and any policies they've enacted favouring Russian oligarchs.
Chief liar: "The UK is way out in front in our willingness to help with refugees."
Number of Ukrainian refugees: over 1 million.
Number of Ukrainian refugees admitted into UK: 50.
Edit: You could probably house the whole lot in a confiscated oligarch mansion. That's if we actually confiscated that is, which we don't.
Ukrainian refugees admitted by UK: 50
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Ireland: 1800
Ukrainian refugees admitted by Canada: 6100
In related news, Boris Johnson overruled security services who advised against giving Evgeny Lebedev a peerage. Ministers have tried to excuse this by saying that Lord Lebedev has never made a speech or voted in the House of Lords. Meanwhile, Lord Lebedev has a pet dog called Boris.
The Media Briefing Room in Downing Street was renovated, at great cost, by a Russian-owned company. No security issues there at all.
Guido Fawkes is, in his own words, a close associate of a Russian spy. Not just that, he entered into a business relationship with him, after learning he was a Russian spy. The son of a KGB general, no less.
Just how much of the right who've shaped our government in recent years are traitors who've been bought by the Russians?
Evgeniy Lebedev, made a peer by Boris Johnson against the advice of the security service, repeatedly tried to meet the chief of MI6 at the MI6 HQ, which said head turned down, saying that he'd have no part in Lebedev's attempts to infiltrate the establishment. Johnson knew of this, and made him a peer anyway.
From October 2019
Brexit party MEPs vote against plans to tackle Russian propaganda
I don't know. And as yet I've seen nothing apart from innuendo. Blair's close link to the USA cost a vast amount of money, lives and international reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
~:smoking:
is this more of the tin-foil hat'ery that russians "bought brexit and own boris"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
heavy on insinuation, light on evidence.
for the fifth time:
"what policy influence have the russian's bought?"
1. Not training 20k ukranians over years in light anti-tank and sniper warfare?
2. Not supplying thousands of modern (non-mouldy!) light anti-tank weapons before (!), the war started?
3. Not building political coalitions across n. europe to support ukraine before (!) Russia had done 'bad things' that justified action?
4. Not outfitting their navy to protect odessa?
5. Not doing all the other things that have made UK an invaluable ally in the eyes of Ukraine (you know, the people who actually matter in this scenario!)?
The Commons committee noted that no evidence was found because the government was actively looking away from the issue so as not to see anything. And the defence is still mounted that there is no direct evidence. Back in Cold War days, merely taking the Russian money and associating with high level Russian individuals would have been enough to make sure a politician were never allowed near high office. And the security services did indeed advise just this. Never mind the security services or their advice though. Democracy overrides any scruples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
As much as I'm sceptical about various US governments, I do not believe any of them, not even that of Trump (another politician bought by Russia), actively sets out to harm the UK as a matter of policy. The Russian government under Putin does.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
At least your lot insisted on getting paid. Our previous administration's flunkies were shined on with fabricated promises and silly rumors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
At least you kicked out your lot. Our lot will be re-elected for the foreseeable on "Get Brexit Done". Which was a Russian funded campaign that our intelligence services were instructed to turn their eyes away from. If you keep your eyes shut, you can't see the evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
For the nonce. Sadly 11/2022 is likely to bring out a lot of chest-thumping Trumpers claiming that the expected GOP gains are the beginnings of a great return.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Just for clarity, are you claiming:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
a) that Russia sought to influence the EU ref campaign in the direction of Leave
b) that the Leave outcome of the vote was substantially the result of Russia's work
One of those possibilities is reasonable, but who cares. Everyone chucked their twopenn'orth in: "back of the queue".
The other of those possibilities is tinfoil hat'ery from a quack.