I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me
Yes, maybe it is? I'm aware of semi-conscious biases in myself (if a burly job applicant told me he was a keen rugby player I'd instinctively think he maybe had a thuggish streak - but I realise that's because I don't know anything about rugby or people who play it) and can believe in unconscious ones. I went on one of those courses and found it helpful in getting to the bottom of them. You don't suddenly become unbiased as a result, but you become more aware of them and try not to let them influence you.
I think there is such a thing as unconscious biases, but I am not convinced from the courses I've attended that they actually help you identify or overcome them, or that they drive us as much as people think. I think self reflection is important, but there's a point when it becomes just navel gazing or a self flagellation exercise.
One in as many words said to watch out for biases, but also said they could reveal themselves by being too friendly or solicitous of others, that is you were showing bias by trying not to show bias, which struck me as unhelpful as it merely confused people as to how they were supposed to think and act.
From my experience of the courses I'd suspect the ratio of people successfully awoken to some of their unconscious biases will be fewer than they hope vs the number of people now anxious and hyper aware of everyone's differences and overcorrecting. The trainer themself was good, and very clear that intent matters and sometimes people will say and do the 'wrong' thing but that's ok, but in the breakout sessions people were not persuaded that was a general attitude, and in reality it would lead to negtative reaction for unintentional actions.
⚡️Russia banned the use of the following words: "invasion", "attack" and "war" when covering the war against Ukraine - official statement of the supervisory authority
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
Putin's pals in the West are a disgrace. I don't know about Spikedtator, Spectraitor might be more appropriate.
I disagree with Rod Liddle (strongly) and that very same issue - I'm a subscriber - contained articles and contributors making precisely the opposite point.
What are people arguing for? That no British publication should ever publish a contrary article? How would that help people identify all the arguments on an issue or what's right?
I agree with Andrew Neil. (For the record I absolutely hate Putin and all his works)
Yup. There was actually a chance for better relations with Putin, although I'm not sure "befriend" is the right word.
Woke is when you travel in that direction, having a nation already achieved good things (such as racial/sexual equality enshrined in legislation) then keep going so far you start talking about reparations for slavery, for racial quotas in workplaces to discriminate against white people, when you stop considering Koreans to be an ethnic minority because they achieve too well in schooling and the workplace, when disagreement is not cause for debate but censure and censorship, when you think biological men competing in women's sports is a good thing and those who disagree are bigots.
You tear down statues then complain the right is starting a culture war because they don't literally get on their knees to approve of your self-absorbed vandalism. When violent, fiery protests are described as 'mostly peaceful' by the media, which is then astonished people take it less seriously as a neutral report of the truth.
Inventing new definitions for what a word means is a valid creative exercise but it does mean we have to come up with a different word for what the old one was describing. Wires will get well and truly crossed otherwise.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me
Yes, maybe it is? I'm aware of semi-conscious biases in myself (if a burly job applicant told me he was a keen rugby player I'd instinctively think he maybe had a thuggish streak - but I realise that's because I don't know anything about rugby or people who play it) and can believe in unconscious ones. I went on one of those courses and found it helpful in getting to the bottom of them. You don't suddenly become unbiased as a result, but you become more aware of them and try not to let them influence you.
The trainings I have attended were far from useful.
The Russian friend I attended one such training with said that it reminded him of the political meetings in the USSR military. A lecture followed by people with ambition parroting back the required answers. All without any knowledge imparted, or conviction from the participants.
He pulled my leg about being a teachers pet, because I told the lecturer exactly what she wanted to hear.
This is why I reckon Constable Savage is alive, well, got 100% on his anti-bias exams. And is out arresting black people for ordering their coffee black.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
I *must* get round to cancelling my sub. It is Hello mag without pictures; the Xmas issue quite literally had diary pieces by Sarah D of York and the most wasted and uniteresting of the Rolli9ng Stones - Watts?
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
Yes. There can be a danger of war-type censorship and groupthink. The West made both offensive and defensive mistakes with Putin, over a period of years, and anything else is self-serving fantasy.
But what's done is done, and we have to face the issues of today.
It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.
In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.
Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.
My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.
I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:
"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]
In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"
"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."
If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.
There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.
Down that path madness lies.
Yes, the insistence on striving for numerical equality is where things go wrong.
The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.
Even if that is true, the public desire to spend money on anything extends only as far as that money is extracted from someone who isn't them. The nanosecond any Government goes after the gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing - which is the only way we're going to make serious progress on funding any of the mountain of priorities and disasters that we've somehow got to manage all at the same time - the violent tantrum from the grey vote will be so extreme that it will run away in fright.
All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.
The gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing and the freedom to use it will be worth Jack Shit if the West ends up becoming hostage to global autarky because it decided to be impotent and didn't stand up to be counted when it mattered.
I'm hoping there will be a consensus that rearmament, at a minimum, is required. But I see no sign of this in statements from politicians.
What do we do, as citizens in a democracy, to make this happen?
Well, I emailed my MP this morning as a start.
I put off emailing my MP, because they're SNP, and I didn't think it would do any good, but I have anyway sent them this message now. ------ "This email is not easy for me to write. I am proud of my grandfather, who was a conscientious objector during WWII, and served in the Friends Ambulance Unit, helping civilians just behind the front line, in northern France and Germany.
I have opposed British military interventions, bombing campaigns, invasions and wars, as likely to do more harm than good. I have argued that it is better to build peace than to fight war. I have helped to organise marches and meetings against wars. I have been arrested by the police when joining others in peaceful blockades of the Faslane nuclear submarine base. I have opposed selling arms to Saudi Arabia to be used in the war in Yemen.
However, seeing this week the heedless aggression of Putin, the brave determination of Ukrainians to resist, and our relative inability to help defend Ukraine - aside from some weapons shipments - I now feel that it is important we have the capability to defend ourselves, and other countries, from aggressive dictatorships.
The experience of the Trump Presidency is that we cannot rely on being protected by the US and so, like the Ukrainians, we have to look to our own means to provide for our defence, and to work with other like-minded European countries.
I urge you to support a program of British rearmament, so that the British armed forces are expanded and modernised to deal with a world that is more dangerous than three decades ago. Please speak up to support the hard decisions that will have to be made on taxation and spending to provide the funding that we need so that we can make a stand to defeat aggression from dictatorships, whether Russian or otherwise. Please also reach out to MPs from other parties so that a cross-party campaign to support rearmament can be forged."
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
Putin's pals in the West are a disgrace. I don't know about Spikedtator, Spectraitor might be more appropriate.
I disagree with Rod Liddle (strongly) and that very same issue - I'm a subscriber - contained articles and contributors making precisely the opposite point.
What are people arguing for? That no British publication should ever publish a contrary article? How would that help people identify all the arguments on an issue or what's right?
I agree with Andrew Neil. (For the record I absolutely hate Putin and all his works)
By their works shall you know them. The week that Putin was marshaling his forces for this brutal assault on a free country, the Spectator chose to publish this article by one of his apologists. This is something they have an absolute right to do, but they shouldn't expect not to get called out for it. This isn't a jolly game at the debating society, innocent people are being slaughtered and this isn't the time to be giving succour to our enemies. Starmer was absolutely right to demand that Labour MPs remove themselves from the mealy-mouthed Stop The War statement, and fair play to the MPs, they did so. The fact that some right wingers in this country can't seem to ditch their man-crush on this vile dictator is disgusting.
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world
One interesting thing, and I am sure Putin disapproves, is that Ukraine is becoming more Woke. Sure, older attitudes persist, but culture change takes time.
Being Woke doesn't seem to be impairing their will to fight. Indeed it seems to be a powerful motivating factor. A freedom worth fighting for.
Maybe I am naive but I do not see any of that as being woke but something to be welcomed
We should probably stop using the word Woke. It makes it difficult to distinguish good social change from bad social change, and creates artificial divisions that frustrate meaningful debate and objective analysis. Some things that may be described as 'woke' are good, others are bad, some are neutral. It should be possible to value living in a free and equal society without regarding yourself as Woke.
I agree but it's generally only being used a term of insult by those on the right. None of the many people I know with left of centre views goes around proclaiming themselves to be 'Woke'.
It replaced 'political correctness' when that term lost its zing because most people adopted attitudes respecting the rights of others. 'Political correctness' and 'Woke' are really simply 'informed politeness' in most instances.
I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me
What about doing a *conscious* bias one? Maybe that'd be more suitable in your case?
Absolutely fascinating peice from Friedman in NY Times:
"Welcome to World War Wired — the first war in a totally interconnected world."
"Our world is not going to be the same again because this war has no historical parallel. It is a raw, 18th-century-style land grab by a superpower — but in a 21st-century globalized world. This is the first war that will be covered on TikTok by super-empowered individuals armed only with smartphones, so acts of brutality will be documented and broadcast worldwide without any editors or filters."
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
Hmm, I'm not sure of your examples. Take those MPs, was their view 'shut down' or, as you wanted, 'challenged'? They belong to a party, and they had a choice to continue with their view or recant to remain part of the party and they made their choice, perhaps even willingly. They could have held to their view and faced party consequences but they chose not to. Either they changed their minds or their party membership was more important to them. Either way any number of other people are sticking to that view.
Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?
I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.
Thinking of positives for important positive thinking. I’ve never known the world so mad and United at one thing before like this. So I don’t feel alone at all, with all world feeling same. From Russian vodka being taken off shelves just about everywhere, Russian tennis player signing no to war on camera. China abstaining. Kazakhstan rejecting Russian pleas for help. Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure.
It’s a Putin meltdown. He has taken his country to somewhere it doesn’t have a single friend. Even in that country it doesn’t look like he has much friends. And why should he? There’s actually no rational sense to it. Just unhinged evilness. I asked God to make it stop, and put things good between everyone. I can’t ask for something bad to happen to Putin, but I have it in my mind he realised what a terrible mess he’s made and can’t live with it
PS enjoyed header by Pip Moss again. The coastline in picture looks like it was designed by Slartibartfast.
"Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure. "
The scene in the film Elizabeth when Walsingham locks some Bishops in the basement so the Act of Uniformity passes?
EDIT: +1 for Slartibartfast.
That’s it. But EU need another 110 years to evolve to such straightforward competence.
Mind you, the Walsingham in that fit made Putin look like a dilettante. Reflection on the poetry of life as be cut his treacherous boyfriends throat.....
On a serious note - the next, real, big thing in the EU, is the expansion of non-unanimous voting, on various topics.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
I *must* get round to cancelling my sub. It is Hello mag without pictures; the Xmas issue quite literally had diary pieces by Sarah D of York and the most wasted and uniteresting of the Rolli9ng Stones - Watts?
It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.
In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.
Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.
My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.
I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:
"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]
In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"
"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."
If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.
There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.
Down that path madness lies.
Yes, the insistence on striving for numerical equality is where things go wrong.
The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.
A unisex armed forces is clearly where we are heading. Has nobody seen Starship Troopers?
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
I *must* get round to cancelling my sub. It is Hello mag without pictures; the Xmas issue quite literally had diary pieces by Sarah D of York and the most wasted and uniteresting of the Rolli9ng Stones - Watts?
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
I *must* get round to cancelling my sub. It is Hello mag without pictures; the Xmas issue quite literally had diary pieces by Sarah D of York and the most wasted and uniteresting of the Rolli9ng Stones - Watts?
Ukraine will be exaggerating a bit (so would we in its position) but the lack of rebuttal to a lot of what it says from the Russians does give me hope. Russia would Ukrainian morale shattered.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
2008 was the key year. South Ossetia, the death of the Politivskaya, the descent into judo personality cults. He'd already gone by then.
Mr Zelensky said "the fight is here. I need ammunition, not a ride", the Associated Press reported, citing a senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation.
This guy is somethig else. We must make sure he gets it.
Yes. This is what a real leader looks like.
Other than give money to charities helping Ukraine, there is very little that I can do. I am not going to hang flags etc. I am not going to the Russian State Opera performance next week.
But I am going to write to my MP about Britain's shameful closing of doors to Ukrainian refugees - unlike the generosity shown by Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Slovakia. I'm going to tell my MP, who was so involved in rescuing cats and dogs from Kabul, that if Britain can do that it can help people from Ukraine. And should.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
Thinking of positives for important positive thinking. I’ve never known the world so mad and United at one thing before like this. So I don’t feel alone at all, with all world feeling same. From Russian vodka being taken off shelves just about everywhere, Russian tennis player signing no to war on camera. China abstaining. Kazakhstan rejecting Russian pleas for help. Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure.
It’s a Putin meltdown. He has taken his country to somewhere it doesn’t have a single friend. Even in that country it doesn’t look like he has much friends. And why should he? There’s actually no rational sense to it. Just unhinged evilness. I asked God to make it stop, and put things good between everyone. I can’t ask for something bad to happen to Putin, but I have it in my mind he realised what a terrible mess he’s made and can’t live with it
PS enjoyed header by Pip Moss again. The coastline in picture looks like it was designed by Slartibartfast.
"Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure. "
The scene in the film Elizabeth when Walsingham locks some Bishops in the basement so the Act of Uniformity passes?
EDIT: +1 for Slartibartfast.
That’s it. But EU need another 110 years to evolve to such straightforward competence.
Mind you, the Walsingham in that fit made Putin look like a dilettante. Reflection on the poetry of life as be cut his treacherous boyfriends throat.....
On a serious note - the next, real, big thing in the EU, is the expansion of non-unanimous voting, on various topics.
Hungary's SWIFT hold-out is only going to hasten that.
Is it possible that Putin, having turned his back on the West for the past decade or so, has become so isolated and has developed such a skewed world view (his dreams of former Soviet glory etc) that he expected the Ukrainian people to cast off the delusions of integrating further with the West and gleefully move back under the influence of Mother Russia?
It certainly feels that way. Maybe Crimea helped feed that view in his mind. I find it impossible to believe that he is not aware that the former Soviet Republics in Europe, and the former eastern bloc, view the Soviet era not as a period of glory and riches, but a dark and oppressive era, full of repressions, terror and atrocities, and the last thing they want is to wind the clock back to that. But maybe he actually doesn’t think they do have that view.
I’m not sure which I find the most believable: that he knows Ukrainians don’t want this but has launched an invasion to “re-convert” them by force (which cannot be anything other than bloody) or that he thought they’d be grateful and welcome him with open arms as their saviour. Either way, it feels like a significant miscalculation.
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
I was told yesterday I was obviously a secret Putin supporter, for suggesting targewting sanctions at the ordinary Russian was pointless and vindictive.
I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.
Anyone who “hates the Spectator” is of course free to set up and publish their own political magazine, make it the longest lived political magazine in the world, employ some of the most brilliant writers for decades, fashion it into the most prestigious magazine of its type on this earth, and make it so successful that after several centuries its sales are soaring and it now outsells national newspapers.
I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me
Yes, maybe it is? I'm aware of semi-conscious biases in myself (if a burly job applicant told me he was a keen rugby player I'd instinctively think he maybe had a thuggish streak - but I realise that's because I don't know anything about rugby or people who play it) and can believe in unconscious ones. I went on one of those courses and found it helpful in getting to the bottom of them. You don't suddenly become unbiased as a result, but you become more aware of them and try not to let them influence you.
The trainings I have attended were far from useful.
The Russian friend I attended one such training with said that it reminded him of the political meetings in the USSR military. A lecture followed by people with ambition parroting back the required answers. All without any knowledge imparted, or conviction from the participants.
He pulled my leg about being a teachers pet, because I told the lecturer exactly what she wanted to hear.
This is why I reckon Constable Savage is alive, well, got 100% on his anti-bias exams. And is out arresting black people for ordering their coffee black.
I went on an unconscious bias training session once where I was mostly just distracted by the attractiveness of the woman teaching it. I suppose that proves the point of the course…
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
PB? You will struggle to find anyone in the world outside Russia cheering this needless horror show on! Inside `Russia Putin is even having to close down his own news networks and take their answer to Jonathan Ross off air. Without even the curtesy of taking our Jonathan Ross off air too, such is war.
It Even does look like the unSWIFT SWIFT account closure is actually happening today. We’ll ignore the fact we spent last two days persuading ourselves it wasn’t that great an idea anyway, instead mash up a picture of cash point telling dobby no.
Wonder how much money, I mean reasoning places like Cyprus needed to change their minds 🙂
Also thanks to PB, for trying to cheer me up with every other post telling me Ukraine is winning, this feels like Ukraine is winning here zone. kind of feel we are all hopefully biased and only getting half the spin game to share.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Thanks to the miracle of Spectator TV on Youtube, you can even watch Rod Liddle talking about it. I've not bothered to watch or read the Spectator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C62PCf8rb00
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
I was told yesterday I was obviously a secret Putin supporter, for suggesting targewting sanctions at the ordinary Russian was pointless and vindictive.
I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.
I don't want to engage in too much cod psychology but I saw an ex American general saying on US TV that he thought Zelensky had driven Putin crazy. Putin believed that Zelensky would be a lightweight, a comedian of all things(!) and Putin expected to get his way. How humiliating for an ex KGB man to be defied by such a non-entity. Going on about joining Nato and not caring what Vlad thinks about it. Jailing a close oligarch friend of Putin.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
Aside from changes in Putin himself - which a number of people have mentioned, having met him....
Greater Russian Nationalism has a central tenant - that the threat to Russian Culture comes from the West. See late stage Solzhenitsyn.
The very rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, and the rapid rise of the EEC->EU and NATO was a series of shocks. Each one bringing him the message that Russia had less and less allies.
This all added up to a situation where the outlook for a GRN supporter looks grimmer and grimmer. How long before the infection spreads to Mother Russia?
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
PB? You will struggle to find anyone in the world outside Russia cheering this needless horror show on! Inside `Russia Putin is even having to close down his own news networks and take their answer to Jonathan Ross off air. Without even the curtesy of taking our Jonathan Ross off air too, such is war.
It Even does look like the unSWIFT SWIFT account closure is actually happening today. We’ll ignore the fact we spent last two days persuading ourselves it wasn’t that great an idea anyway, instead mash up a picture of cash point telling dobby no.
Wonder how much money, I mean reasoning places like Cyprus needed to change their minds 🙂
Also thanks to PB, for trying to cheer me up with every other post telling me Ukraine is winning, this feels like Ukraine is winning here zone. kind of feel we are all hopefully biased and only getting half the spin game to share.
I think we all realize it’s just a matter of time before Putin claims mission accomplished but Ukrainians are going to make it at a cost that further down the line could come back to bite him .
Mr Zelensky said "the fight is here. I need ammunition, not a ride", the Associated Press reported, citing a senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation.
This guy is somethig else. We must make sure he gets it.
Yes. This is what a real leader looks like.
Other than give money to charities helping Ukraine, there is very little that I can do. I am not going to hang flags etc. I am not going to the Russian State Opera performance next week.
But I am going to write to my MP about Britain's shameful closing of doors to Ukrainian refugees - unlike the generosity shown by Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Slovakia. I'm going to tell my MP, who was so involved in rescuing cats and dogs from Kabul, that if Britain can do that it can help people from Ukraine. And should.
The Netherlands has basically opened its doors. Not even requiring checks.
It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.
In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.
Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.
My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.
I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.
I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:
"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]
In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"
"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."
If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.
There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.
Down that path madness lies.
Yes, the insistence on striving for numerical equality is where things go wrong.
The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.
A unisex armed forces is clearly where we are heading. Has nobody seen Starship Troopers?
True equality cannot be achieved early feminists fought for equality now its increasingly becoming a power grab
I don't want to engage in too much cod psychology but I saw an ex American general saying on US TV that he thought Zelensky had driven Putin crazy. Putin believed that Zelensky would be a lightweight, a comedian of all things(!) and Putin expected to get his way. How humiliating for an ex KGB man to be defied by such a non-entity. Going on about joining Nato and not caring what Vlad thinks about it. Jailing a close oligarch friend of Putin.
It's not hard to work out which is the drug addled Nazi.
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
I was told yesterday I was obviously a secret Putin supporter, for suggesting targewting sanctions at the ordinary Russian was pointless and vindictive.
I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.
Downfall remake has to be in the offing too?
Shame Bruno Ganz is no longer available.
I guess Putin has to hope it doesn’t end quite the same way…
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
Yes - the events of the last few days are a disaster for Trumps hopes in 2024. Those shots of him being best mates with Putin in Helsinki will be wheeled out repeatedly
If the Tories had not picked Boris in 2019, the Brexit Party would still have stood candidates in Tory seats, the Tories would not have got a majority, Brexit would still not have got done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader
One of these days I will have to do a counterfactual history over on alternatehistory.com about that.
How would this have worked? Would Conservative MPs have defected to the Brexit Party in the summer of 2019 assuming May doesn't quit? How many - 30, 40, 50? Would others have gone to Change UK?
May loses her majority but would there be enough votes for a Parliamentary No Confidence vote? Even if there were, that wouldn't mean confidence in an alternative Corbyn-led Labour Government unless he does a deal with the SNP to offer a second independence referendum in return for their support....
Let's say he doesn't - it's a complete deadlock - no one can obtain a majority in the Commons so the only option is an election.
Up to the point Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and Conservative leader in mid July, the four parties (Conservative, Labour, Brexit and LD) were all polling between 20-25%. We aren't used to a 4-party system and trying to imagine the result of such an election isn't easy.
If Boris had not become Tory leader the Brexit Party would still have polled over 10% and stood in Tory held seats.
The Tories would likely therefore have lost Tory Remain seats like Esher and Walton, Cheltenham, Chipping Barnet, Lewes, Winchester, Guildford and Chingford and Cities of London and Westminster they held in 2019, especially to the LDs. The Tories would have also won fewer Redwall seats from Labour without Boris as leader.
The result being May or Hunt would still have failed to get a majority and Brexit would still not have got done, even if they had still got most seats. Corbyn would also still therefore be Labour leader even if not PM
Well, he should know. His brother-in-law, an obscure art critic, was a director of the charity set up by Dmitri Firtash, bag man for Semion Mogilevich, a violent Mafia boss currently being given protection by Putin in Russia. Firtash is currently in Austria fighting extradition to the US. His U.K. charity has been closed down. Firtash is not exactly some sort of saint and has been known to be dodgy (to put it at its absolute politest) for some considerable time.
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
PB? You will struggle to find anyone in the world outside Russia cheering this needless horror show on! Inside `Russia Putin is even having to close down his own news networks and take their answer to Jonathan Ross off air. Without even the curtesy of taking our Jonathan Ross off air too, such is war.
It Even does look like the unSWIFT SWIFT account closure is actually happening today. We’ll ignore the fact we spent last two days persuading ourselves it wasn’t that great an idea anyway, instead mash up a picture of cash point telling dobby no.
Wonder how much money, I mean reasoning places like Cyprus needed to change their minds 🙂
Also thanks to PB, for trying to cheer me up with every other post telling me Ukraine is winning, this feels like Ukraine is winning here zone. kind of feel we are all hopefully biased and only getting half the spin game to share.
I would say that no one sanction (SWIFT) or otherwise is a knockout blow. It is the accumulation of interlocking sanctions that will have an effect. The Russian economy won't collapse over night....
An example from WWII - the allies managed to severely reduce the amount of tungsten and other vital alloying metals reaching Germany. This didn't cause German war production to collapse. But it meant that German aircraft engines couldn't run at the highest possible power - which meant the latest Spitfires could take on the Fw190. Rather than the Germans regaining the lead...
It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
The will still of course be massive fall-out if the Met decide to issue Boris Johnson a FPN over parties in the coming weeks, but many believe given the magnitude of the current crisis, the moment for a leadership challenge has passed... for now.
The system is set up so that if Brady receives the requisite number of letters, he phones the MPs to check they still want to proceed, suspend or withdraw their letters. It won't get the numbers needed to proceed during the current crisis.
Equally, I am told that the numbers will be there once the immediate crisis abates if the Met or Grey reports don't give the PM a clean bill of health.
Only if the PM is fined by the Met or the Tories face massive losses in the local elections in May will the PM face a VONC now.
Though if Sunak is also fined his leadership chances would be ended too and Hunt or Truss would likely become PM
Sunak didn't lie to the House....
If Sunak is fined as well as Boris his leadership campaign would be over as much as Boris' Premiership would be.
Law makers cannot be law breakers and Hunt or Truss would be PM instead
A fascinating reminder of the psychology of our prime minister by @RSylvesterTimes. “I’ve never met anyone who believes their own lies so much,” one interviewee says. Inside the mind of Boris Johnson — by his friends and enemies
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
There isn't though - not beyond condemning the appalling Putin, which is about as challenging to do as deciding you won't be having a dog poo risotto for dinner this evening.
When it comes to the response and the lessons, there is all sorts of different takes being put forth. Some of them with quite a surprising (to me) level of confidence.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
Is Liddle making a career out of deliberately being hated? To paraphrase Machiavelli, it is far more profitable to be disliked than loved?
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
Aside from changes in Putin himself - which a number of people have mentioned, having met him....
Greater Russian Nationalism has a central tenant - that the threat to Russian Culture comes from the West. See late stage Solzhenitsyn.
The very rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, and the rapid rise of the EEC->EU and NATO was a series of shocks. Each one bringing him the message that Russia had less and less allies.
This all added up to a situation where the outlook for a GRN supporter looks grimmer and grimmer. How long before the infection spreads to Mother Russia?
The inability of Russia to defend its ally Serbia. That is what triggered Putin's rebuilding Russia's armed forces.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
Aside from changes in Putin himself - which a number of people have mentioned, having met him....
Greater Russian Nationalism has a central tenant - that the threat to Russian Culture comes from the West. See late stage Solzhenitsyn.
The very rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, and the rapid rise of the EEC->EU and NATO was a series of shocks. Each one bringing him the message that Russia had less and less allies.
This all added up to a situation where the outlook for a GRN supporter looks grimmer and grimmer. How long before the infection spreads to Mother Russia?
The inability of Russia to defend its ally Serbia. That is what triggered Putin's rebuilding Russia's armed forces.
Yes - the humiliation of the paratroopers at Pristina airport....
I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.
Anyone who “hates the Spectator” is of course free to set up and publish their own political magazine, make it the longest lived political magazine in the world, employ some of the most brilliant writers for decades, fashion it into the most prestigious magazine of its type on this earth, and make it so successful that after several centuries its sales are soaring and it now outsells national newspapers.
Good luck
To be fair, you can hate the (current incarnation of the) Spectator without denying it publication. Nor does hating it necessarily require that you set up a rival publication and attempt to generate a similar.level of success.
You can, for example, wish it was a bit more like it was during the 2000s where you would disagree with about half the content, but it would be more thought provoking. I think Liddle tends towards the tabloid (which may also be part of its success?)
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world
One interesting thing, and I am sure Putin disapproves, is that Ukraine is becoming more Woke. Sure, older attitudes persist, but culture change takes time.
Being Woke doesn't seem to be impairing their will to fight. Indeed it seems to be a powerful motivating factor. A freedom worth fighting for.
There is nothing fiercer in nature than a mother protecting her offspring. Ukrainian mothers will be protecting their offspring. If they have the weapons to do so, so much the better.
Anyone who “hates the Spectator” is of course free to set up and publish their own political magazine, make it the longest lived political magazine in the world, employ some of the most brilliant writers for decades, fashion it into the most prestigious magazine of its type on this earth, and make it so successful that after several centuries its sales are soaring and it now outsells national newspapers.
Good luck
Who cares about Rod Liddle's meanderings...skipped over those in the latest edition, heading straight to 'Hot Desking' "...In a minute I might order one of those excellent Sri Lankan fish curries...
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
No, I do not really get Andrew Neil's repeated thin-skinned pouts about criticism of the Spectator. Criticising what people choose to publish is not a restraint on free speech, it is the exercising of it.
Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
Yes - the events of the last few days are a disaster for Trumps hopes in 2024. Those shots of him being best mates with Putin in Helsinki will be wheeled out repeatedly
CPAC is on at the moment. It seems the Trumpists are either ignoring this altogether, or maintaining some kind of equivalence with their own "invasion" from Mexico.
Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.
It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".
It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world
One interesting thing, and I am sure Putin disapproves, is that Ukraine is becoming more Woke. Sure, older attitudes persist, but culture change takes time.
Being Woke doesn't seem to be impairing their will to fight. Indeed it seems to be a powerful motivating factor. A freedom worth fighting for.
Maybe I am naive but I do not see any of that as being woke but something to be welcomed
We should probably stop using the word Woke. It makes it difficult to distinguish good social change from bad social change, and creates artificial divisions that frustrate meaningful debate and objective analysis. Some things that may be described as 'woke' are good, others are bad, some are neutral. It should be possible to value living in a free and equal society without regarding yourself as Woke.
I agree but it's generally only being used a term of insult by those on the right. None of the many people I know with left of centre views goes around proclaiming themselves to be 'Woke'.
It replaced 'political correctness' when that term lost its zing because most people adopted attitudes respecting the rights of others. 'Political correctness' and 'Woke' are really simply 'informed politeness' in most instances.
Recently it has been used a lot more by the Right in that way, but it started on the Left, and the start wasn't great. You'd have people telling their story about what "awoke" them to the reality of injustice, with the explicit message that they were now of the Woke (i.e. the Elect) who could moralise at those who had not experienced such an epiphany.
It was tedious bollocks on the Left even before the Right picked up on it as a stick to beat them with.
In it’s original form, it was a self-applied term used by (IIRC) left wing black activists to denote the time when they realised that the guff they’d been fed by the state in the US that they lived in a non-racist society & everyone was equal now, despite the problems in the past was just that - guff. That no effort had been made to counter the effects of 200 years of injustice, there was no real remorse - no truth & reconciliation. That their parents still had to have “the talk” with them about how to comport themselves in front of authority figures - especially the police - regardless of provocation, lest they be thrown into the cells on the flimsiest of excuses, if not worse. And so on.
The extention to other parts of the left & then the term’s appropriation as a term of contempt by the right came later.
I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
Free speech also means being allowed to whine about Woke and being cancelled when someone highlights all-to-predictable contrarianism, or in this case just reproduces an image of the headline of an article. Then everyone can point & laugh at those whiners and their endless attempts to pretend being challenged is some kind of censorship.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
No, I do not really get Andrew Neil's repeated thin-skinned pouts about criticism of the Spectator. Criticising what people choose to publish is not a restraint on free speech, it is the exercising of it.
Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.
I’m not sure we actually disagree here. And given that there is plenty of stuff we do vehemently disagree on, I suggest we move on to those more interesting topics, where you’re an idiot
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
No, I do not really get Andrew Neil's repeated thin-skinned pouts about criticism of the Spectator. Criticising what people choose to publish is not a restraint on free speech, it is the exercising of it.
Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.
I’m not sure we actually disagree here. And given that there is plenty of stuff we do vehemently disagree on, I suggest we move on to those more interesting topics, where you’re an idiot
Please don't try to gatekeep what I say. I can be an idiot on uninteresting topics too.
Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
Yes - the events of the last few days are a disaster for Trumps hopes in 2024. Those shots of him being best mates with Putin in Helsinki will be wheeled out repeatedly
CPAC is on at the moment. It seems the Trumpists are either ignoring this altogether, or maintaining some kind of equivalence with their own "invasion" from Mexico.
This could make a real impact on things in the US, I think, more than here. Putin is now public enemy no.1, and Trump is very clearly associated with him - or , to be more specific, has very clearly associated himself with him.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
Is Liddle making a career out of deliberately being hated? To paraphrase Machiavelli, it is far more profitable to be disliked than loved?
Just had a look at the YouTube of Liddle explaining his views - that the West passed up on various things, including an apparent interest in doing NATO, by Russia.
His thesis is that Russia has historically oscillated between a Western friendly and "Slavic redoubt" attitude.
My only comment is "What would the price be for responding to the overtures?"
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
No, I do not really get Andrew Neil's repeated thin-skinned pouts about criticism of the Spectator. Criticising what people choose to publish is not a restraint on free speech, it is the exercising of it.
Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.
I think Neil's basic point is sound, but he himself is quite vain and prickly as his interactions on twitter demonstrate, and that can make his point seem less, er, pointed.
It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.
Interesting. I heard it the other way round, that the German tanks were precision machines requiring delicate maintenance, so broke down a lot. Think supercars. Unlike Russian T34s
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
Free speech also means being allowed to whine about Woke and being cancelled when someone highlights all-to-predictable contrarianism, or in this case just reproduces an image of the headline of an article. Then everyone can point & laugh at those whiners and their endless attempts to pretend being challenged is some kind of censorship.
It’s great.
In my experience, criticism of the Spectator nearly always comes from a peculiar subset of people who genuinely dislike its viewpoint yet secretly would love to be published inside it, as it is so prestigious. A curious phenomenon
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.
Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
Is Liddle making a career out of deliberately being hated? To paraphrase Machiavelli, it is far more profitable to be disliked than loved?
Just had a look at the YouTube of Liddle explaining his views - that the West passed up on various things, including an apparent interest in doing NATO, by Russia.
His thesis is that Russia has historically oscillated between a Western friendly and "Slavic redoubt" attitude.
My only comment is "What would the price be for responding to the overtures?"
And how serious were those overtures, given the depth of the move away from that position?
I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
Hmm, I'm not sure of your examples. Take those MPs, was their view 'shut down' or, as you wanted, 'challenged'? They belong to a party, and they had a choice to continue with their view or recant to remain part of the party and they made their choice, perhaps even willingly. They could have held to their view and faced party consequences but they chose not to. Either they changed their minds or their party membership was more important to them. Either way any number of other people are sticking to that view.
Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?
I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.
No, I agree with Cookie up to a point. There is a tendency among some to mob people with unpopular opinions personally (not their ideas but themselves as individuals) - we see it in half-jokey mode with HYUFD all the time, and I get it from time to time, but less-frequent contributors sometimes really get savaged at a personal level and accused of things they've not said. They then drop off the forum, presumably as a result. It would be interesting to have a pro-Putin view here, just as it's interesting to have MrEd expressing sympathy for Trump (and he nearly did drop out as a result of the aggression towards him) - otherwise we have no idea how other people think outside our cosy circle.
But we shouldn't exaggerate about it. Mostly we're all pretty civilised with each other, which makes the forum so enjoyable most of the time.
I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.
So we are on the fourth day of the liberation of Ukraine, a country with a population two thirds that of the UK, and so far apparently the Russians have captured only one city, about the size of Canterbury?
about the size of Salisbury, you mean..
I was going by its Wikipedia page, which says 150,768.
But I should have added that the UK has expressed scepticism even about that claim. But even if it's true, that would mean the Russians are in control of only a tiny percentage of urban Ukraine. Even when they get to the stage of being able to drive tanks around all the main roads of Kiev, that's nothing like being in control of a country of 44 million people.
Canterbury proper only has a population of about 55k. The City of Canterbury local authority district, which includes Whitstable, Herne Bay, and the surrounding villages, is about 150k.
Right. So as I said in the first place, about the size of Canterbury (city of).
You were rather imprecise in your definition. The settlement of Canterbury, which is what most people refer to when using that name, is considerably smaller than you suggested. Unless you’re in Herne Bay complaining about your bins, few refer to the whole district when they say Canterbury.
I’m here all day for gems like this. I don’t get out much.
Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine
Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world
I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.
Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.
Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?
Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.
I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.
I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".
When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?
Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.
Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.
And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.
I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.
I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.
And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?
Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.
(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)
There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.
I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.
He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.
Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.
Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events
Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.
He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.
I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.
But I think we have to do it.
But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.
Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.
So it won't happen.
We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.
Even if that is true, the public desire to spend money on anything extends only as far as that money is extracted from someone who isn't them. The nanosecond any Government goes after the gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing - which is the only way we're going to make serious progress on funding any of the mountain of priorities and disasters that we've somehow got to manage all at the same time - the violent tantrum from the grey vote will be so extreme that it will run away in fright.
All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.
So riddle me this:
Overall tax take is at recent highs. And yet we have apparently a long list of things that need more funding.
So where is the money going and how should it be redeployed?
This is on the assumption - as I think implied in your post - that it’s not feasible to raise tax significantly
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe
The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable
Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one
Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
You might be right. I’d have to go back and look at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
Free speech also means being allowed to whine about Woke and being cancelled when someone highlights all-to-predictable contrarianism, or in this case just reproduces an image of the headline of an article. Then everyone can point & laugh at those whiners and their endless attempts to pretend being challenged is some kind of censorship.
It’s great.
That was one of the interesting things about the runup to indyref 1. The BBC and newspaper journalists went absolutely berserk at seeing direct and often highly intelligent criticism of their output published on social media and the net more generally. Remember in the old days that they could simply bin Letters to the Editor. In the 2010s, not so much ... though BBC Scotland journos, and IIRC one Graun journalist, did start switching off comments on their pieces - quite ironic as the level of debate was rather better than the general UK politics part of the BBC news website.
I am not sure that Mr Neil has recovered from the shock.
The Russians are struggling and taking heavy casualties. They are beatable. Our best chance to defeat Putin’s threat to Europe is now. We should be giving Ukraine everything it wants. Despite the risks, that should include a no-fly zone. Putin’s victory would be the greater risk.
It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.
Interesting. I heard it the other way round, that the German tanks were precision machines requiring delicate maintenance, so broke down a lot. Think supercars. Unlike Russian T34s
See also Kalashnikov versus M14
The problem was a combination of
- Insistence on a vast pyramid of sub-contractors, all doing high end craftsmanship - Lack of real mass production - A zillion versions of everything across a zillion different designs. Look up how many designs of truck the German Army was using. - The lack of key materials which meant the above system of piece work broke down. - The lack of understanding about engineering for mass production, rather than theoretical performance.
Ironically, the spur gearing in the Panther final drive was an attempt at simplification - but that was driven by a lack of tooling for cutting helical gears
This is a picture of the gears on HMS Belfast - imagine the fun of cutting those before CNC -
#Estonia is banning Russian airlines from our airspace. We invite all EU countries to do the same. There is no place for planes of the agressor state in democratic skies. #StandWithUkraine
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
Hmm, I'm not sure of your examples. Take those MPs, was their view 'shut down' or, as you wanted, 'challenged'? They belong to a party, and they had a choice to continue with their view or recant to remain part of the party and they made their choice, perhaps even willingly. They could have held to their view and faced party consequences but they chose not to. Either they changed their minds or their party membership was more important to them. Either way any number of other people are sticking to that view.
Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?
I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.
No, I agree with Cookie up to a point. There is a tendency among some to mob people with unpopular opinions personally (not their ideas but themselves as individuals) - we see it in half-jokey mode with HYUFD all the time, and I get it from time to time, but less-frequent contributors sometimes really get savaged at a personal level and accused of things they've not said. They then drop off the forum, presumably as a result. It would be interesting to have a pro-Putin view here, just as it's interesting to have MrEd expressing sympathy for Trump (and he nearly did drop out as a result of the aggression towards him) - otherwise we have no idea how other people think outside our cosy circle.
But we shouldn't exaggerate about it. Mostly we're all pretty civilised with each other, which makes the forum so enjoyable most of the time.
Pile ons should not be necessary, and personal (as opposed to political) invective is certainly not necessary I agree, but nevertheles people are a bit quick to think the line has been crossed from challenge to shut down.
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
I really do feel that this time is different and Putin has crossed a line that won’t be forgotten .
The impact of seeing a country who previously didn’t have freedoms, then moved to a democracy and now is fighting once again for its freedoms has had a huge emotional impact on many across the world .
You’d have to have a heart of stone to not be effected by what’s unfolding.
The Russians are struggling and taking heavy casualties. They are beatable. Our best chance to defeat Putin’s threat to Europe is now. We should be giving Ukraine everything it wants. Despite the risks, that should include a no-fly zone. Putin’s victory would be the greater risk.
It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.
Interesting. I heard it the other way round, that the German tanks were precision machines requiring delicate maintenance, so broke down a lot. Think supercars. Unlike Russian T34s
See also Kalashnikov versus M14
Post WWII, German generals came up with a lot of pathetic excuses for losing eg mice ate the wires in the tanks/we were defeated by the weather/we had the right plans to win, but that madman Hitler wouldn't follow them.
Everything that went wrong for the Germans went wrong for the Soviets, but the latter won because they because their will to win was stronger.
Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..
The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.
Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified. I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding. Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down. When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
Hmm, I'm not sure of your examples. Take those MPs, was their view 'shut down' or, as you wanted, 'challenged'? They belong to a party, and they had a choice to continue with their view or recant to remain part of the party and they made their choice, perhaps even willingly. They could have held to their view and faced party consequences but they chose not to. Either they changed their minds or their party membership was more important to them. Either way any number of other people are sticking to that view.
Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?
I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.
There is nothing wrong per se with vilifying stupid or ignorant points of view. It might not always be the most effective way to counter them but that's a different matter.
Fwiw my approach (to stupid or ignorant points of view) depends on my energy levels. If I'm low on it, I go for "Ignore" since this is the easiest. Hardly any effort needed at all. If otoh I'm feeling the other extreme - absolutely bristling - I chose the option which takes the most out of you, "Engage With Concentration And Grace". This is tough because you're seeking to understand and (maybe) influence. Tough but worth it sometimes, even if you fail. Then if I'm in the middle zone, up for it but not *that* up for it, I go with "Vilify". This is very often where I end up - no surprise with it being the centre ground - and so I'd hate to see it outlawed.
Comments
One in as many words said to watch out for biases, but also said they could reveal themselves by being too friendly or solicitous of others, that is you were showing bias by trying not to show bias, which struck me as unhelpful as it merely confused people as to how they were supposed to think and act.
From my experience of the courses I'd suspect the ratio of people successfully awoken to some of their unconscious biases will be fewer than they hope vs the number of people now anxious and hyper aware of everyone's differences and overcorrecting. The trainer themself was good, and very clear that intent matters and sometimes people will say and do the 'wrong' thing but that's ok, but in the breakout sessions people were not persuaded that was a general attitude, and in reality it would lead to negtative reaction for unintentional actions.
It's been gone for a long time now.
I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding.
Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down.
When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.
The Russian friend I attended one such training with said that it reminded him of the political meetings in the USSR military. A lecture followed by people with ambition parroting back the required answers. All without any knowledge imparted, or conviction from the participants.
He pulled my leg about being a teachers pet, because I told the lecturer exactly what she wanted to hear.
This is why I reckon Constable Savage is alive, well, got 100% on his anti-bias exams. And is out arresting black people for ordering their coffee black.
Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one
A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here
But what's done is done, and we have to face the issues of today.
The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.
He 'aint gonna accept any blame himself.
Then what will they do?
------
"This email is not easy for me to write. I am proud of my grandfather, who was a conscientious objector during WWII, and served in the Friends Ambulance Unit, helping civilians just behind the front line, in northern France and Germany.
I have opposed British military interventions, bombing campaigns, invasions and wars, as likely to do more harm than good. I have argued that it is better to build peace than to fight war. I have helped to organise marches and meetings against wars. I have been arrested by the police when joining others in peaceful blockades of the Faslane nuclear submarine base. I have opposed selling arms to Saudi Arabia to be used in the war in Yemen.
However, seeing this week the heedless aggression of Putin, the brave determination of Ukrainians to resist, and our relative inability to help defend Ukraine - aside from some weapons shipments - I now feel that it is important we have the capability to defend ourselves, and other countries, from aggressive dictatorships.
The experience of the Trump Presidency is that we cannot rely on being protected by the US and so, like the Ukrainians, we have to look to our own means to provide for our defence, and to work with other like-minded European countries.
I urge you to support a program of British rearmament, so that the British armed forces are expanded and modernised to deal with a world that is more dangerous than three decades ago. Please speak up to support the hard decisions that will have to be made on taxation and spending to provide the funding that we need so that we can make a stand to defeat aggression from dictatorships, whether Russian or otherwise. Please also reach out to MPs from other parties so that a cross-party campaign to support rearmament can be forged."
Starmer was absolutely right to demand that Labour MPs remove themselves from the mealy-mouthed Stop The War statement, and fair play to the MPs, they did so. The fact that some right wingers in this country can't seem to ditch their man-crush on this vile dictator is disgusting.
Or a Trumpist Republican.
Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.
still a great song though.
Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?
I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.
On a serious note - the next, real, big thing in the EU, is the expansion of non-unanimous voting, on various topics.
It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.
But I might just be hoping I’m right.
Other than give money to charities helping Ukraine, there is very little that I can do. I am not going to hang flags etc. I am not going to the Russian State Opera performance next week.
But I am going to write to my MP about Britain's shameful closing of doors to Ukrainian refugees - unlike the generosity shown by Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Slovakia. I'm going to tell my MP, who was so involved in rescuing cats and dogs from Kabul, that if Britain can do that it can help people from Ukraine. And should.
I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.
I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.
"Tonight in Kyiv, curfew between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.
There’s a grave threat of subversive act in the city."
I believe that this is substantially longer than yesterday's curfew. Going to be another long night for Kyiv's civilians.
It certainly feels that way. Maybe Crimea helped feed that view in his mind. I find it impossible to believe that he is not aware that the former Soviet Republics in Europe, and the former eastern bloc, view the Soviet era not as a period of glory and riches, but a dark and oppressive era, full of repressions, terror and atrocities, and the last thing they want is to wind the clock back to that. But maybe he actually doesn’t think they do have that view.
I’m not sure which I find the most believable: that he knows Ukrainians don’t want this but has launched an invasion to “re-convert” them by force (which cannot be anything other than bloody) or that he thought they’d be grateful and welcome him with open arms as their saviour. Either way, it feels like a significant miscalculation.
I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.
Good luck
It Even does look like the unSWIFT SWIFT account closure is actually happening today. We’ll ignore the fact we spent last two days persuading ourselves it wasn’t that great an idea anyway, instead mash up a picture of cash point telling dobby no.
Wonder how much money, I mean reasoning places like Cyprus needed to change their minds 🙂
Also thanks to PB, for trying to cheer me up with every other post telling me Ukraine is winning, this feels like Ukraine is winning here zone. kind of feel we are all hopefully biased and only getting half the spin game to share.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C62PCf8rb00
Shame Bruno Ganz is no longer available.
Greater Russian Nationalism has a central tenant - that the threat to Russian Culture comes from the West. See late stage Solzhenitsyn.
The very rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, and the rapid rise of the EEC->EU and NATO was a series of shocks. Each one bringing him the message that Russia had less and less allies.
This all added up to a situation where the outlook for a GRN supporter looks grimmer and grimmer. How long before the infection spreads to Mother Russia?
https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1497533776364285953
at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)
Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike
Ukrainian soldiers asking captured teenage conscripts for their parents’ phone numbers.
A Ukrainian citizen pulling up to a Russian tank and offering to tow it back to Russia.
https://twitter.com/BDStanley/status/1497534978388807682
The Tories would likely therefore have lost Tory Remain seats like Esher and Walton, Cheltenham, Chipping Barnet, Lewes, Winchester, Guildford and Chingford and Cities of London and Westminster they held in 2019, especially to the LDs. The Tories would have also won fewer Redwall seats from Labour without Boris as leader.
The result being May or Hunt would still have failed to get a majority and Brexit would still not have got done, even if they had still got most seats. Corbyn would also still therefore be Labour leader even if not PM
Well, he should know. His brother-in-law, an obscure art critic, was a director of the charity set up by Dmitri Firtash, bag man for Semion Mogilevich, a violent Mafia boss currently being given protection by Putin in Russia. Firtash is currently in Austria fighting extradition to the US. His U.K. charity has been closed down. Firtash is not exactly some sort of saint and has been known to be dodgy (to put it at its absolute politest) for some considerable time.
An example from WWII - the allies managed to severely reduce the amount of tungsten and other vital alloying metals reaching Germany. This didn't cause German war production to collapse. But it meant that German aircraft engines couldn't run at the highest possible power - which meant the latest Spitfires could take on the Fw190. Rather than the Germans regaining the lead...
It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C62PCf8rb00
Law makers cannot be law breakers and Hunt or Truss would be PM instead
When it comes to the response and the lessons, there is all sorts of different takes being put forth. Some of them with quite a surprising (to me) level of confidence.
This is our #city, our #land, our soil. We will fight for it. So next week I can plant my flowers. Here. https://twitter.com/kiraincongress/status/1497525044007870465/photo/1
You can, for example, wish it was a bit more like it was during the 2000s where you would disagree with about half the content, but it would be more thought provoking. I think Liddle tends towards the tabloid (which may also be part of its success?)
Riveting stuff!
Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.
https://www.salon.com/2022/02/25/cpacs-bloodthirsty-us-conservatives-are-still-warmongering--this-time-for-domestic-battle/
The extention to other parts of the left & then the term’s appropriation as a term of contempt by the right came later.
It’s great.
This bit I find mystifying. I thought the Russians were the masters of social media misinformation?
Seems not.
His thesis is that Russia has historically oscillated between a Western friendly and "Slavic redoubt" attitude.
My only comment is "What would the price be for responding to the overtures?"
See also Kalashnikov versus M14
Many of his columns are black humour. Not entirely clear a lot of the time whether he is being serious or not.
But we shouldn't exaggerate about it. Mostly we're all pretty civilised with each other, which makes the forum so enjoyable most of the time.
I’m here all day for gems like this. I don’t get out much.
Overall tax take is at recent highs. And yet we have apparently a long list of things that need more funding.
So where is the money going and how should it be redeployed?
This is on the assumption - as I think implied in your post - that it’s not feasible to raise tax significantly
I am not sure that Mr Neil has recovered from the shock.
David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h
The Russians are struggling and taking heavy casualties. They are beatable. Our best chance to defeat Putin’s threat to Europe is now. We should be giving Ukraine everything it wants. Despite the risks, that should include a no-fly zone. Putin’s victory would be the greater risk.
https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1497490959235440641
David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h
He will not nuke us because we’ve shot down some of his planes.
- Insistence on a vast pyramid of sub-contractors, all doing high end craftsmanship
- Lack of real mass production
- A zillion versions of everything across a zillion different designs. Look up how many designs of truck the German Army was using.
- The lack of key materials which meant the above system of piece work broke down.
- The lack of understanding about engineering for mass production, rather than theoretical performance.
Ironically, the spur gearing in the Panther final drive was an attempt at simplification - but that was driven by a lack of tooling for cutting helical gears
This is a picture of the gears on HMS Belfast - imagine the fun of cutting those before CNC -
#Estonia is banning Russian airlines from our airspace. We invite all EU countries to do the same. There is no place for planes of the agressor state in democratic skies. #StandWithUkraine
https://twitter.com/kajakallas/status/1497536160033386502?
The most significant so far has been Poland - it really needs Germany to stuff them up properly.
The impact of seeing a country who previously didn’t have freedoms, then moved to a democracy and now is fighting once again for its freedoms has had a huge emotional impact on many across the world .
You’d have to have a heart of stone to not be effected by what’s unfolding.
Everything that went wrong for the Germans went wrong for the Soviets, but the latter won because they because their will to win was stronger.
Fwiw my approach (to stupid or ignorant points of view) depends on my energy levels. If I'm low on it, I go for "Ignore" since this is the easiest. Hardly any effort needed at all. If otoh I'm feeling the other extreme - absolutely bristling - I chose the option which takes the most out of you, "Engage With Concentration And Grace". This is tough because you're seeking to understand and (maybe) influence. Tough but worth it sometimes, even if you fail. Then if I'm in the middle zone, up for it but not *that* up for it, I go with "Vilify". This is very often where I end up - no surprise with it being the centre ground - and so I'd hate to see it outlawed.