RayC

You can get some hints here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_nationality_law#:~:text=Moroccan nationality is typically obtained,period of time through naturalization.

Imo the idea that a PM - Labour or Tory - can be brought for the price of a match day ticket, a decent suit and a pretty frock is ridiculous. That said, this is (yet another) example of a lack of political nous on Starmer's part, and it gives his opponents a stick to beat him with. Starmer can, with some justification, be accused of hypocrisy. Moreover, even if his defence that security dictates he must take match-day hospitality is accepted, it doesn't explain why a couple with a combined income of circa £200k/annum needs to accept gifts of free clothing. Lammy's "defence" that they need to look their best is laughable. Are Mr. & Mrs. Starmer incapable of choosing well-tailored clothes themselves?

It is nothing of the sort. EU efforts to use Russian funds are being stymied by the cuckoo in the nest, Orban.

I was using the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' to mean the eradication of a race. As your link explains, the reason(s) behind the expulsion of Germans from the Annexed terrorities did not include purposefully killing Germans. The action may have wrong, inhumane even, but it is hardly comparable to Hitler's 'Final Solution' for the Jews. The Morgenthau Plan was not implemented to any large extent; the Marshall Plan was. The Morgenthau Plan was a US initiative. Churchill was initially opposed to it but was effectively bribed into accepting it. Churchill can be labelled unscrupulous, but he was acting within the context of war and its direct aftermath, and in what he saw as the UK's best interests. "Although Winston Churchill was initially opposed to the idea, he eventually came around, thanks to the US offering the United Kingdom a sizeable Lend-Lease agreement" https://www.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/morgenthau-plan.html An alternative view: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#:~:text=Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on,in an aerial bombardment campaign. You didn't. I confused your post with an article. My apologies. To repeat, Churchill was a flawed individual. Outside of the context of WW2, I - and I suspect many (most?) others - would find it difficult to say much good about him. However, within that context, he was a great leader. More to the point, I think that your (implied) contention that Churchill should be viewed in a similar light to Hitler and Stalin is without any merit.

And yet despite these efforts, we are all still able to access alternative views with relative ease? We are, fortunately, long way from 1984 and thought crimes.

What ethnic cleansing? Where is there any evidence that Churchill wanted to eliminate all Germans? Churchill may have 'signed off' on the Morgenthau plan, but Hoover came up with a figure of 25 million displaced Germans much later. There is little evidence that this figure is accurate and/or that Churchill would have been aware of the long-term effects of population numbers. In any event, this plan was soon discarded. It is disingenuous to imply, as you did in your reply to @placeholder that the bombings of Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry were different (and presumably somehow more noble?) than the bombing of German cities by the Allies: The effects were similar. Imo it is also ridiculous to imply that 'carpet bombing' of the sort seem in WW2 was somehow similar to warfare waged by England in the Middle Ages. Presumably this is another attempt to lay guilt at the feet of the English? You have still not addressed the fundamental difference between Hitler/Stalin and Churchill. Churchill's actions were dictated by the context i.e. war/ conflict; call it what you will. On the other hand, Hitler and Stalin's murderous actions also took place outside of the theatre of war, and were a systematic attempt to eradicate political opponents (and in Hitler's case, a whole race(s)).

What is untrue about my original post? You have chosen to ignore what it says. What I wrote was: "A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin OUTSIDE OF THE THEATRE OF WAR (addition of capitals): Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not". Churchill was Secretary of State for War at the time of your examples, so his words/ actions need to be seen in that context and are outside of the scope of my proposition. Whether Churchill's actions were necessary and/or moral are different questions, but Churchill is no more a murderer than any other Head of Government or Defence/ War Minister of any nation at any point in time. The fundamental difference between Hitler & Stalin and Churchill is that the former pair deliberately murdered their political opponents - and in Hitler's case engaged in genocide - Churchill did not.

I completely agree with your final sentence. However, you are letting your own bias show. In this day and age, anyone living in a Western State has access to an almost endless supply of information from sources from hard-left to hard-right. There are very few restrictions on what an individual can read.

Here we go again ..... Those of us who read newspapers and watch TV are being "fed propaganda", whilst the 'enlightened' source their undeniable 'facts' from 'alternative' sources (heavy sarcasm intended). The people I find tiresome are those who - when offered a different perspective to their tedious 'The West is to blame for everything' narrative - are unable to mount a credible defence of their position.

You may not be a child - neither am I - but imo it is childish - naive at best - to imply that winning is unimportant when it comes to war: Whatever the eventual outcome of this war, there will have been human, economic and political costs for both sides, however, one side will lose more than the other. This will not be a 'forever' war. At some point, one side will back down. When will that be? I have no idea. Do I think that NATO troops should be deployed on the ground? Frankly, I don't know. (Limited) nuclear war? I suppose that it is possible. MAD? Imo extremely unlikely. Economics undoubtedly plays a part in wars and - if the apparent military stalemate continues - economics will probably dictate when this war ends. From the West's perspective, should we consider that stage to have already been reached? Imo, no. The implication that the only consequence of submitting to Russian demands wrt Ukraine will be the latter replacing one corrupt leadership with another is naive. A Russian victory in Ukraine will have lasting and widespread repercussions. There will be a change in the balance of power in Europe. Putin believes that Russia's 'sphere of influence' extends to its' neighbouring states. Putin will be emboldened and may start to make demands of the Baltic States. What then? And what of the wider implications? A victory for Russia is a de facto defeat for the US. Do you not think that China is looking on with interest and evaluating what implications this might have for their actions in Taiwan/ the South China Sea. War is bad. It should be avoided. However, unfortunately sometimes it is necessary.

A better analogy would be to compare Churchill, Hitler and Stalin outside of the theatre of war: Hitler and Stalin were murderers, Churchill was not.

Unproven premise: Why should allowing Ukraine more scope to defend itself result in 'forever war'? 'Both Ukraine and Russia are corrupt': Completely irrelevant. 'There are no winners in war': If the result of this war is that Russia is able to redraw its' borders with Ukraine and/or is given any concessions, it will have won. Ukraine has internationally agreed borders. Russia has violated them. Your approach is simple appeasement and results in the aggressor effectively being rewarded. If your goal is to reward those who initiate war then your approach cannot be faulted.

None of them made it onto Spanish soil in this instance.

Following this he was made Transport Minister!

How about Putin withdraws Russian troops from Ukrainian territory? That would de-escalate things. Discussions could then start about the amount and types of reparation which Moscow should make.

Always wondered where that scene was filmed. Must confess that Queens was low down on my list of possible sites😉

Bit late, I'm afraid. Needed something to deaden the pain but thanks for caring 😉

I wouldn't say ALL matters.

It is, of course, ridiculous to expect Labour to affect meaningful change within two months of taking office, and it is laughable that some of those now rushing to criticise the government are the very same individuals who urge patience when it comes to reaping the promised rewards of Brexit. However, that is not say that critics of this government do not make some valid points. Personally, I find the continual 'things are worse than we thought' and 'its going to be very difficult' rhetoric, tedious and disingenuous. It does smell of getting your excuses in first if things don't go to plan. In opposition Labour often, quite rightly, accused the Tory government of refusing to accept responsibility and accountability when the latter cited COVID or Ukraine as mitigating factors. By the same token, Labour should not use the legacy which it inherited from the Tories as an excuse to shun accountability and responsibility. It is what it is. Get on with it. Wrt the NHS specifically: My understanding is that a programme of work is being developed, and that the details will be published in the spring. Therefore imo currently no meaningful comment can be offered, and until then we'll have to make do with more 'sticking plaster' solutions such as advertising campaigns.

No matter how hard you try, you won't be able to pin the use of 'sunny uplands' on me within the context of Brexit. I'm not sure who got there first, but any one of Leadsom, Gove or Rees-Moog are among the front runners. Your second paragraph certainly has more than a ring of truth about it, but imo the divisions were neither as visible nor as manifest pre-2016 as they are now. I did not blame Brexit for these divisions. What I said was that the referendum brought them to the fore. Pre 2016, I would contend that following a general election, irrespective of who won, there was a general acceptable by all of 1) the result and 2) nothing much will change. That wasn't the case following the referendum. Some remainers refused to accept the result, and that many Brexiters expected radical change. Neither party got what they wanted and imo, as a result, the divisions within UK society have became more stark and visible. In short, we are more polarised than ever. I agree that openness and honesty are normally good things but, occasionally, things are better off being unsaid and untested.

Perhaps, but that then begs the question, given Churchill's refusal to negotiate, why did Hitler open the Russian front anyway? For once, I find myself siding with Cameroni; Hitler's decision was probably based on faulty information. While I find discussion about counterfactuals interesting, after all is said and done it is mere conjecture. What we do know for a fact is that Churchill helped defeat an evil regime. Now another opinion: It is inconceivable to me that Western Europe would have been a better place under Nazi rule. For that reason alone, criticism of Churchill for his failure to negotiate with Hitler is inherently flawed.

I have no influence when it comes to UK trade policy. However, I was assured by Boris Johnson and his Brexit buddies that the world (outside of the EU) would be bending over backwards to sign trade deals and commit to deeper, lasting relationships with the UK. Unfortunately, to quote Diana Ross, "I'm still waiting,".

"... the prime minister will outline three "big shifts" in the government’s approach: (1) implementing more technology to create a "digital NHS," (2) moving care from hospitals into community settings (3) and shifting focus from treatment to prevention. However, Sir Keir will caution that what he calls "the biggest reimagining of our NHS since its birth" will be neither quick nor easy. He will urge for "major surgery, not sticking plaster solutions" Why cannot some of these problems be solved quickly and (relatively? easily? If I recall correctly, the updating of the NHS IT systems has been ongoing since Blair was in government! IT projects vary in complexity - and without knowing too many details - imo it really shouldn't take 20+ years to implement a system that is 'fit for purpose'. (2) Moving care into the community: Again, why is this so difficult to achieve? I am, of course, over-simplifying matters but isn't this effectively a case of moving resources from one place to another? (3) Shifting the focus from treatment to prevention: This is becoming repetitive. Is it really that difficult to achieve some quick and cheap wins? The NHS currently offers a routine - imo superficial - check up every five years. Why not make this yearly and extend its' scope to include basic blood tests? I lived in Brussels until a few years ago. Unless the Belgium system has deteriorated out of all recognition since then, based on my experience there is no comparison in the quality of service offered. Both countries spend +/-11% of their GDP on health provision, so throwing (even more) money at the NHS isn't necessarily the answer.

A nice feel good story. Bon Jovi deserves all the plaudits that he gets for his action.

I agree that the timing of Germany's attack on Russia was the single biggest blunder of WW2. Germany lost +/-1,500 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, which is not an insignificant number. In addition, German armaments were superior in quality to Russia's. According to both Stalin and Khrushchev, Land-Lease provisions were crucial to the Russian cause. The idea that Russia would inevitably triumph over Nazi Germany is imo far from certain.