Things are getting quite difficult here in Tallinn, There is very little room to house refugees: hotels are full, Now discussions of opening schools and lots of people taking in refugees into their homes. Already there are twice the number Estonia thought they could cope with, and if we have it bad, Poland is taking in tens of thousands every day. At least 1.7 million now in Poland alone and now the forecast is maybe at total of 7 million. The UK needs to get its act together, every country in Europe is trying to help and larger countries like Britain can not just turn their backs. Putin is using terror as a weapon to create this refugee crisis and if we are not prepared to defend the Ukrainians ourselves the minimum must surely be to help the victims of this senseless and criminal war.
As for British right wing politicians´ relationships with the Siloviki, we should note that many people warned about this a long time ago. As people here know well, I am particularly contemptuous of those like Banks, Farage, or Rees Mogg among others (and Alex Salmond, I may add), who have had close financial relationships with Russia, even when it was quite clear what kind of regime Putin leads. As for Johnson, he too was warned. At the very least all of them should disclose the precise nature of their dealings with those close to the Russian regime. However that will needs must be after this crisis abates, for now we must concentrate on saving as much as we can in Ukraine and weakening the Putin regime with all the tools we have. This does not end for at least as long as VVP leads Russia.
The only thing that spoils your generally excellent posts is your partisanship.
I'm yet to see any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn or his ilk, who spent months apologising and whatabouting for the Salisbury chemical weapons attacks.
Happy to criticise Corbyn, who was utterly spineless (at best) but in this case we have to follow the money, and I´m afraid it is Farage and various Conservatives and one or two ScotNats who have most to blame. It is insidious and dangerous and when this is over, we need to completely clean up our act.
What no Lib Dumbs in there!!!!!!!! I am shocked
Well, if you have some names, please name them.
You are the one doing the naming indiscriminately sunshine
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Things are getting quite difficult here in Tallinn, There is very little room to house refugees: hotels are full, Now discussions of opening schools and lots of people taking in refugees into their homes. Already there are twice the number Estonia thought they could cope with, and if we have it bad, Poland is taking in tens of thousands every day. At least 1.7 million now in Poland alone and now the forecast is maybe at total of 7 million. The UK needs to get its act together, every country in Europe is trying to help and larger countries like Britain can not just turn their backs. Putin is using terror as a weapon to create this refugee crisis and if we are not prepared to defend the Ukrainians ourselves the minimum must surely be to help the victims of this senseless and criminal war.
As for British right wing politicians´ relationships with the Siloviki, we should note that many people warned about this a long time ago. As people here know well, I am particularly contemptuous of those like Banks, Farage, or Rees Mogg among others (and Alex Salmond, I may add), who have had close financial relationships with Russia, even when it was quite clear what kind of regime Putin leads. As for Johnson, he too was warned. At the very least all of them should disclose the precise nature of their dealings with those close to the Russian regime. However that will needs must be after this crisis abates, for now we must concentrate on saving as much as we can in Ukraine and weakening the Putin regime with all the tools we have. This does not end for at least as long as VVP leads Russia.
In light of a conversation I was having with my father, who used to run an exchange programme with Estonia:
How are Russians in Estonia reacting to what's happening?
Mostly horrified, For the time being I would say it has brought different communities togetehr somewhat, but we will see how things develop,
We see exactly the same in Ukraine. Kharkiv, a Russian speaking city reduced to rubble.
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Usually indicates that the models are wrong, a bit like the Covid modelling from some (but not all) modellers.
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Usually indicates that the models are wrong, a bit like the Covid modelling from some (but not all) modellers.
Seems most of these models are built by frauds masquerading as experts.
I came back from shopping and logged to to find that I had been mentioned 84 times, and a few minutes later by three more. On investigation I discovered you were speaking of "Task and Purpose", a military youtuber I like. I don't know whether to be pleased or worried that anybody reads the stuff I post, but whilst I'm here I'd like to add some more:
Has there ever been a discussion about trans without it descending into accusations of bigotry? I hate to "both sides" it, but both sides have a problem.
But there aren't two sides, are there? I suppose I am what a mindless gammon like @kyf_100 would call anti-trans, but what I am against is opportunistic shits pretending to be trans and screwing things up for women and for the genuinely trans.
Both sides have legitimate and persuasive positions, and I do not intend to endorse or reject either. But it's really not so helpful when discussions immediately descend into accusations of intolerance. It's a particularly bad debate because both sides tend to have a hair trigger for doing it.
I still don't see that there are two sides. Are there two sides to the racist/anti-racist debate? Nobody morally sane could be "against" trans people, but there's some tedious but very necessary qualifications that need to be made over safety, over the making of irreversible choices by the young, and over sport. The End.
"The End"? Oh, that's a pity, I had more to say. How lucky for you "The End" came just at the moment you stopped speaking.
OK, you have the floor.
No, it's all yours. I don't care enough about this to get in a fight about it. And it's dinner time.
Pele, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have all been greater players than Maradona. Plus whatever greatness Maradona achieved was with the help of performance enhancing drugs.
Far be it for me to stand up for that little thug, but there's no drug that makes you play like Maradona did.
I think his failed drug test came at the end of his career when he was probably struggling for fitness.
And ephedrine, ffs. Speed lite, not even illegal in most countries.
Things are getting quite difficult here in Tallinn, There is very little room to house refugees: hotels are full, Now discussions of opening schools and lots of people taking in refugees into their homes. Already there are twice the number Estonia thought they could cope with, and if we have it bad, Poland is taking in tens of thousands every day. At least 1.7 million now in Poland alone and now the forecast is maybe at total of 7 million. The UK needs to get its act together, every country in Europe is trying to help and larger countries like Britain can not just turn their backs. Putin is using terror as a weapon to create this refugee crisis and if we are not prepared to defend the Ukrainians ourselves the minimum must surely be to help the victims of this senseless and criminal war.
As for British right wing politicians´ relationships with the Siloviki, we should note that many people warned about this a long time ago. As people here know well, I am particularly contemptuous of those like Banks, Farage, or Rees Mogg among others (and Alex Salmond, I may add), who have had close financial relationships with Russia, even when it was quite clear what kind of regime Putin leads. As for Johnson, he too was warned. At the very least all of them should disclose the precise nature of their dealings with those close to the Russian regime. However that will needs must be after this crisis abates, for now we must concentrate on saving as much as we can in Ukraine and weakening the Putin regime with all the tools we have. This does not end for at least as long as VVP leads Russia.
The only thing that spoils your generally excellent posts is your partisanship.
I'm yet to see any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn or his ilk, who spent months apologising and whatabouting for the Salisbury chemical weapons attacks.
Happy to criticise Corbyn, who was utterly spineless (at best) but in this case we have to follow the money, and I´m afraid it is Farage and various Conservatives and one or two ScotNats who have most to blame. It is insidious and dangerous and when this is over, we need to completely clean up our act.
What no Lib Dumbs in there!!!!!!!! I am shocked
Well, if you have some names, please name them.
You are the one doing the naming indiscriminately sunshine
It is a matter of public record that Alex Salmond both worked fro Russia Today and had a close relationship with Vladimir Romanov. Likewis the other people I have mentioned. Banks even boasts about it.
I think you should stop posting when you are pissed Malcolm, you just become an obnoxious ned.
Things are getting quite difficult here in Tallinn, There is very little room to house refugees: hotels are full, Now discussions of opening schools and lots of people taking in refugees into their homes. Already there are twice the number Estonia thought they could cope with, and if we have it bad, Poland is taking in tens of thousands every day. At least 1.7 million now in Poland alone and now the forecast is maybe at total of 7 million. The UK needs to get its act together, every country in Europe is trying to help and larger countries like Britain can not just turn their backs. Putin is using terror as a weapon to create this refugee crisis and if we are not prepared to defend the Ukrainians ourselves the minimum must surely be to help the victims of this senseless and criminal war.
As for British right wing politicians´ relationships with the Siloviki, we should note that many people warned about this a long time ago. As people here know well, I am particularly contemptuous of those like Banks, Farage, or Rees Mogg among others (and Alex Salmond, I may add), who have had close financial relationships with Russia, even when it was quite clear what kind of regime Putin leads. As for Johnson, he too was warned. At the very least all of them should disclose the precise nature of their dealings with those close to the Russian regime. However that will needs must be after this crisis abates, for now we must concentrate on saving as much as we can in Ukraine and weakening the Putin regime with all the tools we have. This does not end for at least as long as VVP leads Russia.
In light of a conversation I was having with my father, who used to run an exchange programme with Estonia:
How are Russians in Estonia reacting to what's happening?
Mostly horrified, For the time being I would say it has brought different communities togetehr somewhat, but we will see how things develop,
We see exactly the same in Ukraine. Kharkiv, a Russian speaking city reduced to rubble.
From my brief visits to the Baltics - they seemed to be aiming to be "Scandinavian European". While I'm sure @Cicero point out my mistake there, that's what it felt like.
There's not much in such a culture to appeal to a Greater X Nationalist. For that you need a massive sense of betrayal, failure, hardship and general fucked up stuff.
» show previous quotes bollox argument from you, if even one of them is a deviant it is one too many.
Just shut the fuck up Malcolm. Enlessly you convery a slime trail of poison. I and others have repeatedly tried to pick the good from the bad in your character. There is good, i'll admit. The efforts though have been wildly misplaced. I've had enough. You're an arse of the first rank, you are irresponsible beyond measure, and you're thick as a plank.
Let me know if I've left anything out.
The truth upsetting you sunshine.
(This was my post although Malcolm hasn't attributed as such.)
No, you are upsetting me. Sort yourself out.
Fail to see why upset , letting men have unfettered access to women's safe places is abominable and cannot be supported by any right thinking person. Anyone supporting it is not right in the head period. If you think so , really sort yourself out. Trampling women's rights is far from funny.
You are talking to someone who thinks the 7 bridge problem reduces to/is an instance of the travelling salesman problem.
That's a problem in topology, vs a problem about minimising distances.
Probably the dimmest bit of idiocy seen on this site since the demise of the much lamented @Ash.
Graph theory is not topology!
Go on, explain why not.
Topology is in my view the maths of everything. I rather wish I could make sense of it
Fail
I don't know where you got that from, but if you are capable of the 7 bridges/TS problem conflation, you don't actually understand it any better than a mynah bird repeating it.
Maybe.
Topology tells us how to conect stuff. Thus all of maths and all of life must be about topology. 7 bridges is a connectivity probelm, but the same applies to the travelling salesman if you weight the paths as one.
Just as you don't have a three body problem if you take one of the bodies away.
Entirely right. (The three body problem must have as a solution the two body wisdom. As you suggested)
I'd love to see this clearly, but I don't. Little bits nag at me. But even those little bits are wonderful.
Pele, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have all been greater players than Maradona. Plus whatever greatness Maradona achieved was with the help of performance enhancing drugs.
Far be it for me to stand up for that little thug, but there's no drug that makes you play like Maradona did.
I think his failed drug test came at the end of his career when he was probably struggling for fitness.
I’ve never been able to see the benefits of cocaine, but I’m 100% sure it definitely wouldn’t be the enhancement of the performance of professional athletes.
Has there ever been a discussion about trans without it descending into accusations of bigotry? I hate to "both sides" it, but both sides have a problem.
But there aren't two sides, are there? I suppose I am what a mindless gammon like @kyf_100 would call anti-trans, but what I am against is opportunistic shits pretending to be trans and screwing things up for women and for the genuinely trans.
Both sides have legitimate and persuasive positions, and I do not intend to endorse or reject either. But it's really not so helpful when discussions immediately descend into accusations of intolerance. It's a particularly bad debate because both sides tend to have a hair trigger for doing it.
I still don't see that there are two sides. Are there two sides to the racist/anti-racist debate? Nobody morally sane could be "against" trans people, but there's some tedious but very necessary qualifications that need to be made over safety, over the making of irreversible choices by the young, and over sport. The End.
"The End"? Oh, that's a pity, I had more to say. How lucky for you "The End" came just at the moment you stopped speaking.
OK, you have the floor.
No, it's all yours. I don't care enough about this to get in a fight about it. And it's dinner time.
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Reminds me of the computer models that gave Hillary a 99% chance of victory a matter of hours before she lost.
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Usually indicates that the models are wrong, a bit like the Covid modelling from some (but not all) modellers.
Seems most of these models are built by frauds masquerading as experts.
I think Michael Gove had something to say on the topic.
Not great figures for either but just 15% on Starmer
It seems obvious to me that the person who is the Prime Minister and therefore directs the UK's response is best placed to stand up to Russia; the leader of the opposition, with no power, much less so. A stupid question; but as you say, poor figure for the PM (and LoTO).
So England don’t review a LBW that was out but do review a caught behind which wasn’t. And that is the game ( which was probably going nowhere anyway).
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
The same reason that the models of COVID didn't match what happened. The models either had
- had bad inputs. - failed to model some parameters. - plain bad algorithms.
Perhaps it is that fighting head to head, the Ukrainians would have been smashed in a couple of days. That doesn't seem to be what they are doing.
At least in some places they seem to be manoeuvring and using strategic depth to extend the Russians supply lines. This may just be that the Russians advanced until there supply line became a problem and the Ukrainians gnawed at them all the while, rather than some brilliant Ukrainian plan.
Seems like the polls haven't really moved much at all despite Ukraine.
Opinium would be a 10+ point lead if they hadn't changed the methodology, consistent with other polls.
Unless Starmer does something stupid Labour will lead for a while yet as the 2017 coalition has been re-built and the Red Wall has left the Tories for good.
If you can't see a country mile off the way this is going to go down, then you've not been paying attention, because it is identical to COVID.
When we actually try to do anything it will more often than not be half baked and shambolic, like the visa row or some of the lockdown decisions. But broadly the government's mood music on Ukraine will be right and occasionally bold: public policy in all major practical ways will be hostile to Putin with little caveat.
But Boris will simply refuse to see the tension between opposing Putin and taking money, industrialising the taking of money, from Russians near or far from Putin in increasingly opaque ways with minimal oversight. Cakeism. In the same way he didn't, doesn't, see the issue with Downing Street parties.
This is slow burn, Lord Lebedev probably isn't the killer blow here. As we all take on the chin a fuel crisis, the boycotting of Russian goods, the ruin of football clubs, and much else besides for the sake of Ukraine, I've no doubt at all that elements in CCO, another office under Boris's direction, are full speed ahead taking money from many rich Russians in opaque fashion, at least one of whom will turn out to be demonstrably in favour of the razing of Ukraine and of the lies underpinning that. And Boris doesn't see a problem and will defend any corrupt practice to the hilt.
If the ultimate breaking of all this is anything like it was for COVID, partygate will look like a speck of dust.
Things are getting quite difficult here in Tallinn, There is very little room to house refugees: hotels are full, Now discussions of opening schools and lots of people taking in refugees into their homes. Already there are twice the number Estonia thought they could cope with, and if we have it bad, Poland is taking in tens of thousands every day. At least 1.7 million now in Poland alone and now the forecast is maybe at total of 7 million. The UK needs to get its act together, every country in Europe is trying to help and larger countries like Britain can not just turn their backs. Putin is using terror as a weapon to create this refugee crisis and if we are not prepared to defend the Ukrainians ourselves the minimum must surely be to help the victims of this senseless and criminal war.
As for British right wing politicians´ relationships with the Siloviki, we should note that many people warned about this a long time ago. As people here know well, I am particularly contemptuous of those like Banks, Farage, or Rees Mogg among others (and Alex Salmond, I may add), who have had close financial relationships with Russia, even when it was quite clear what kind of regime Putin leads. As for Johnson, he too was warned. At the very least all of them should disclose the precise nature of their dealings with those close to the Russian regime. However that will needs must be after this crisis abates, for now we must concentrate on saving as much as we can in Ukraine and weakening the Putin regime with all the tools we have. This does not end for at least as long as VVP leads Russia.
The only thing that spoils your generally excellent posts is your partisanship.
I'm yet to see any criticism of Jeremy Corbyn or his ilk, who spent months apologising and whatabouting for the Salisbury chemical weapons attacks.
Happy to criticise Corbyn, who was utterly spineless (at best) but in this case we have to follow the money, and I´m afraid it is Farage and various Conservatives and one or two ScotNats who have most to blame. It is insidious and dangerous and when this is over, we need to completely clean up our act.
What no Lib Dumbs in there!!!!!!!! I am shocked
Well, if you have some names, please name them.
You are the one doing the naming indiscriminately sunshine
It is a matter of public record that Alex Salmond both worked fro Russia Today and had a close relationship with Vladimir Romanov. Likewis the other people I have mentioned. Banks even boasts about it.
I think you should stop posting when you are pissed Malcolm, you just become an obnoxious ned.
When you are ;losing blame your opponent of being drunk. Poor poor riposte and shows no substance to your post. Just to correct your lies, Alex Salmond's company sold his company's programmes to RT. Your pathetic attempt to say he had a close relationship with a Lithuanian chancer is more pathetic. Typical Lib Dem, more faces than the town clock, forget promises and pocket any money they can regardless of provenance. Away with you imposter of the truth. Hint , when you are posting crap , try to think of a better excuse when you are called out, as they say play the ball and not the man it only belittles you.
I came back from shopping and logged to to find that I had been mentioned 84 times, and a few minutes later by three more. On investigation I discovered you were speaking of "Task and Purpose", a military youtuber I like. I don't know whether to be pleased or worried that anybody reads the stuff I post, but whilst I'm here I'd like to add some more:
Pele, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo have all been greater players than Maradona. Plus whatever greatness Maradona achieved was with the help of performance enhancing drugs.
Far be it for me to stand up for that little thug, but there's no drug that makes you play like Maradona did.
I think his failed drug test came at the end of his career when he was probably struggling for fitness.
I’ve never been able to see the benefits of cocaine, but I’m 100% sure it definitely wouldn’t be the enhancement of the performance of professional athletes.
I was thinking of when was done for taking ephedrine:
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Probably because the US intelligence community is telling the Ukraine military exactly where the Russians are.
Parked for now. But once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how he explains this away to MPs.
Daily Tellumguff - "How PM Made Lebedev a Lord to Fool Putin into Thinking Boris was His Buddy"
Seriously, we can’t at this stage rule out Boris was a double agent all along, despite all appearances and the mounting evidence, he might actually have been on the side of the UK.
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
The story of opinion polling in 1945 was that it slightly underestimated the Labour share, considerably underestimated the Tory share, and somewhat overstated the Liberal share.
Although given the Liberal party's state in the period 1930-46 the word 'Liberal' could have meant many things. Plus, of course, they didn't field that many candidates - only 306. (Not that it led to any improvement when they fielded 475 in 1950 - rather the contrary.)
» show previous quotes bollox argument from you, if even one of them is a deviant it is one too many.
Just shut the fuck up Malcolm. Enlessly you convery a slime trail of poison. I and others have repeatedly tried to pick the good from the bad in your character. There is good, i'll admit. The efforts though have been wildly misplaced. I've had enough. You're an arse of the first rank, you are irresponsible beyond measure, and you're thick as a plank.
Let me know if I've left anything out.
The truth upsetting you sunshine.
(This was my post although Malcolm hasn't attributed as such.)
No, you are upsetting me. Sort yourself out.
Fail to see why upset , letting men have unfettered access to women's safe places is abominable and cannot be supported by any right thinking person. Anyone supporting it is not right in the head period. If you think so , really sort yourself out. Trampling women's rights is far from funny.
You are talking to someone who thinks the 7 bridge problem reduces to/is an instance of the travelling salesman problem.
That's a problem in topology, vs a problem about minimising distances.
Probably the dimmest bit of idiocy seen on this site since the demise of the much lamented @Ash.
Graph theory is not topology!
Go on, explain why not.
Topology is in my view the maths of everything. I rather wish I could make sense of it
A graph is a topological space. However, topology is the study of topological spaces themselves, while graph theory more typically studies the relationships between objects within the spaces. Hence, the Bridges problem would nowadays be viewed as graph theory, because the question is whether the edges/bridges can be traversed in a specific way, which is a relationship type problem.
IshmaelZ is however correct in his assertion that the Bridges problem originally helped Euler lay the foundations for both fields, so I withdraw my objection.
Ronaldo. Simply the best player of all time. 59 hat tricks. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maradona says hello.
I am 58. Maradona emerged shortly after I started watching football seriously. Subsequently, I’ve seen and admired all the other contenders: Zidane, Figo, Messi, Ronaldo etc. All truly great players, but none of them as good as Maradona, who was simply the greatest of all time.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
So England don’t review a LBW that was out but do review a caught behind which wasn’t. And that is the game ( which was probably going nowhere anyway).
The last review was a disgrace. What was root playing at!
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
Usually indicates that the models are wrong, a bit like the Covid modelling from some (but not all) modellers.
Seems most of these models are built by frauds masquerading as experts.
I think Michael Gove had something to say on the topic.
His comment was, so I have been told, after a briefing by an "education expert" who demanded that spending on schools be doubled, but was unable to explain what the extra money was to be spent on. And refused to say what metrics would indicate success of the increase in spending. And turned out, never to have actually worked in education - just studied it.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
As a friend's mother said, "nice men don't win wars". He was a bastard, when we needed one. His second premiership was a travesty.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Parked for now. But once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how he explains this away to MPs.
Daily Tellumguff - "How PM Made Lebedev a Lord to Fool Putin into Thinking Boris was His Buddy"
Seriously, we can’t at this stage rule out Boris was a double agent all along, despite all appearances and the mounting evidence, he might actually have been on the side of the UK.
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
He's got some chutzpah, hasn't he? Being a Russian agent and, in plain sight, calling himself Boris.
Parked for now. But once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how he explains this away to MPs.
Daily Tellumguff - "How PM Made Lebedev a Lord to Fool Putin into Thinking Boris was His Buddy"
Seriously, we can’t at this stage rule out Boris was a double agent all along, despite all appearances and the mounting evidence, he might actually have been on the side of the UK.
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
Three of the most key fascinating things, for me, so far are : the clear links between the Conservative Friends of Russia and Vote Leave ; the presence, highlighted for me for the very first time in today's Sunday Times expose above, of Lebedev Jr on the very night Johnson and Gove decided to back Brexit ; and Johnson's clear determination to go over the heads of MI6 to get Lebedev his peerage.
Parked for now. But once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how he explains this away to MPs.
Daily Tellumguff - "How PM Made Lebedev a Lord to Fool Putin into Thinking Boris was His Buddy"
Seriously, we can’t at this stage rule out Boris was a double agent all along, despite all appearances and the mounting evidence, he might actually have been on the side of the UK.
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
He's got some chutzpah, hasn't he? Being a Russian agent and, in plain sight, calling himself Boris.
That is quite wrong. His friends and family know him as Oleksandr, apparently
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
Parked for now. But once the Ukraine war is in a new phase, hard to see how he explains this away to MPs.
Daily Tellumguff - "How PM Made Lebedev a Lord to Fool Putin into Thinking Boris was His Buddy"
Seriously, we can’t at this stage rule out Boris was a double agent all along, despite all appearances and the mounting evidence, he might actually have been on the side of the UK.
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
He's got some chutzpah, hasn't he? Being a Russian agent and, in plain sight, calling himself Boris.
And giving the impression of being possibly the most bribable man in Britain.
The professionals were as clueless as the rest of us. https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085 "The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
The same reason that the models of COVID didn't match what happened. The models either had
- had bad inputs. - failed to model some parameters. - plain bad algorithms.
Perhaps it is that fighting head to head, the Ukrainians would have been smashed in a couple of days. That doesn't seem to be what they are doing.
At least in some places they seem to be manoeuvring and using strategic depth to extend the Russians supply lines. This may just be that the Russians advanced until there supply line became a problem and the Ukrainians gnawed at them all the while, rather than some brilliant Ukrainian plan.
Saw a YouTube video from some Putin shill saying that the Russians planned to kettle the Ukrainians (and were still on track to do so). So the Russians launched themselves across the border without backup, and the Ukrainians let them do so - defending the border would have been suicidal. Unsurprisingly the Ukrainians know Russian military doctrine, they were taught it too.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
By voting him in at two by-elections and three consecutive general elections? If you say so.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
Seems like the polls haven't really moved much at all despite Ukraine.
Opinium would be a 10+ point lead if they hadn't changed the methodology, consistent with other polls.
Unless Starmer does something stupid Labour will lead for a while yet as the 2017 coalition has been re-built and the Red Wall has left the Tories for good.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
Well, we can't talk about pineapple on pizza every day, it gets boring.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
» show previous quotes bollox argument from you, if even one of them is a deviant it is one too many.
Just shut the fuck up Malcolm. Enlessly you convery a slime trail of poison. I and others have repeatedly tried to pick the good from the bad in your character. There is good, i'll admit. The efforts though have been wildly misplaced. I've had enough. You're an arse of the first rank, you are irresponsible beyond measure, and you're thick as a plank.
Let me know if I've left anything out.
The truth upsetting you sunshine.
(This was my post although Malcolm hasn't attributed as such.)
No, you are upsetting me. Sort yourself out.
Fail to see why upset , letting men have unfettered access to women's safe places is abominable and cannot be supported by any right thinking person. Anyone supporting it is not right in the head period. If you think so , really sort yourself out. Trampling women's rights is far from funny.
You are talking to someone who thinks the 7 bridge problem reduces to/is an instance of the travelling salesman problem.
That's a problem in topology, vs a problem about minimising distances.
Probably the dimmest bit of idiocy seen on this site since the demise of the much lamented @Ash.
Graph theory is not topology!
Go on, explain why not.
Topology is in my view the maths of everything. I rather wish I could make sense of it
A graph is a topological space. However, topology is the study of topological spaces themselves, while graph theory more typically studies the relationships between objects within the spaces. Hence, the Bridges problem would nowadays be viewed as graph theory, because the question is whether the edges/bridges can be traversed in a specific way, which is a relationship type problem.
IshmaelZ is however correct in his assertion that the Bridges problem originally helped Euler lay the foundations for both fields, so I withdraw my objection.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
By voting him in at two by-elections and three consecutive general elections? If you say so.
- “… you will search in vain for a monument to Winston Churchill, despite the fact that he was Dundee’s MP for a full fourteen years, from 1908 until his humiliating defeat in 1922.
If I am right, there was such a plan but it came to nought. In the decades after that defeat, Dundee’s relationship with the great man was slightly fraught.
The froideur, it seems, was returned. In 1943, at the height of Churchill’s wartime power, councillors in Dundee agreed by a single vote to offer him the Freedom of the City. The offer was curtly declined.“
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
Rubbish. Serious rubbish. He was no doubt too English, too posh and not tall enough for you, he had all kinds of faults but he was as right as right could be on the biggest question ever asked of this country, his physical courage was such that he went to fight in the trenches at the head of a bunch of Scottishers, and he was the greatest orator the world has known, at the moment oratory was what was most wanted.
If confirmed, then (very) significant. There are Initial Reports coming out that a Ukrainian Counteroffensive has Secured the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk Region effectively breaking the Siege on the Ukrainian held Coastal city of Mariupol which is just South of the town and the Key Donetsk-Mariupol Highway. https://mobile.twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492
Visegrád 24 @visegrad24 · 59m The Russian Central Bank has announced that Russia’s stock market will remain closed for the next week and a new decision will then be taken about whether to prolong it.
When it does reopen I suspect many in the west will be circling to buy the whole of Russian industry for about $50 the lot.
And there might be worse ways to destroy the Kremlin kleptocracy.
Far more likely that Chinese investors pick up large stakes in Russian industry. They won't have to wait for the eventual reopening of the Russian economy.
I’d be tempted to invest in Ukraine again. I took a bath on the hryvnia devaluation last time
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA XA! And here’s €500 for yer border guard ya numpty.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
Utter bullshit. He might have been if he had died in 1939. But he genuinely and almost single handedly kept Britain in the war, when others would have sued for peace. He enabled final victory, as in the old saying Britain contributed time, Russia, lives and America material (or something like that). When he died the country mourned. Even the dockers, no friends of the Tories, bowed their cranes as the barge passed.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
you're welcome. In fairness to me, I have downed an entire bottle of Chardonnay so my clarity may not be all it should be.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
By voting him in at two by-elections and three consecutive general elections? If you say so.
- “… you will search in vain for a monument to Winston Churchill, despite the fact that he was Dundee’s MP for a full fourteen years, from 1908 until his humiliating defeat in 1922.
If I am right, there was such a plan but it came to nought. In the decades after that defeat, Dundee’s relationship with the great man was slightly fraught.
The froideur, it seems, was returned. In 1943, at the height of Churchill’s wartime power, councillors in Dundee agreed by a single vote to offer him the Freedom of the City. The offer was curtly declined.“
Have you been to Dundee? I wouldn't take the Freedom of the place if you paid me
It rankles with you that WSC had to represent one of your constituencies, lead your Fusiliers and win a world war for you. No good deed goes unpunished.
Ronaldo. Simply the best player of all time. 59 hat tricks. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maradona says hello.
I am 58. Maradona emerged shortly after I started watching football seriously. Subsequently, I’ve seen and admired all the other contenders: Zidane, Figo, Messi, Ronaldo etc. All truly great players, but none of them as good as Maradona, who was simply the greatest of all time.
Yes. I concur. Unlike the others he rarely played for great teams with superstars round him. He dragged ordinary sides to win Championships. He almost signed for Sheffield United. They got Alex Sabella instead.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
you're welcome. In fairness to me, I have downed an entire bottle of Chardonnay so my clarity may not be all it should be.
Depends on the Chardonnay - with a good one, you may achieve Kwisatz Haderach levels of perception.
Ronaldo. Simply the best player of all time. 59 hat tricks. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maradona says hello.
I am 58. Maradona emerged shortly after I started watching football seriously. Subsequently, I’ve seen and admired all the other contenders: Zidane, Figo, Messi, Ronaldo etc. All truly great players, but none of them as good as Maradona, who was simply the greatest of all time.
Yes. I concur. Unlike the others he rarely played for great teams with superstars round him. He dragged ordinary sides to win Championships. He almost signed for Sheffield United. They got Alex Sabella instead.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
Was there anyone involved in Brexit who isn’t/wasn’t some kind of national security risk?
Ronaldo. Simply the best player of all time. 59 hat tricks. Absolutely ridiculous.
Maradona says hello.
I am 58. Maradona emerged shortly after I started watching football seriously. Subsequently, I’ve seen and admired all the other contenders: Zidane, Figo, Messi, Ronaldo etc. All truly great players, but none of them as good as Maradona, who was simply the greatest of all time.
Yes. I concur. Unlike the others he rarely played for great teams with superstars round him. He dragged ordinary sides to win Championships. He almost signed for Sheffield United. They got Alex Sabella instead.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
By voting him in at two by-elections and three consecutive general elections? If you say so.
- “… you will search in vain for a monument to Winston Churchill, despite the fact that he was Dundee’s MP for a full fourteen years, from 1908 until his humiliating defeat in 1922.
If I am right, there was such a plan but it came to nought. In the decades after that defeat, Dundee’s relationship with the great man was slightly fraught.
The froideur, it seems, was returned. In 1943, at the height of Churchill’s wartime power, councillors in Dundee agreed by a single vote to offer him the Freedom of the City. The offer was curtly declined.“
Have you been to Dundee? I wouldn't take the Freedom of the place if you paid me
It rankles with you that WSC had to represent one of your constituencies, lead your Fusiliers and win a world war for you. No good deed goes unpunished.
I've been looking for books on Russian economic liberalisation (1990s). Has anyone any leads?
Not really. Could tell you the best books to look at for the 1980s but not the 1990s.
I think however Robert Service's Penguin History Of Russia in the 20th Century has a list of further reading in it. But I haven't got it to hand and can't be bothered to go and look.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
Folk are thrashing around for explanations. How couldn't it have been obvious to all that Putin was a two bit Fascist? He kept speaking and acting like one. We have been wilfully blind, and so have our leaders. So. They must be ill-intentioned. It absolves us of some of our guilt. And comforts us that they aren't all stupid. Just bad.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
Utter bullshit. He might have been if he had died in 1939. But he genuinely and almost single handedly kept Britain in the war, when others would have sued for peace. He enabled final victory, as in the old saying Britain contributed time, Russia, lives and America material (or something like that). When he died the country mourned. Even the dockers, no friends of the Tories, bowed their cranes as the barge passed.
"Between 1940 and 1945 Winston Churchill was probably the most popular British prime minister of all time. In May 1945 his approval rating in the opinion polls, which had never fallen below 78 per cent, stood at 83 per cent."
If confirmed, then (very) significant. There are Initial Reports coming out that a Ukrainian Counteroffensive has Secured the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk Region effectively breaking the Siege on the Ukrainian held Coastal city of Mariupol which is just South of the town and the Key Donetsk-Mariupol Highway. https://mobile.twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492
Slightly surprised if the Ukrainians have resources to counter-attack in the south (there was overnight news of a counter-attack in Kharkiv too). Assumed they were keeping force in reserve to repel the katsapy from Kyiv.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
you're welcome. In fairness to me, I have downed an entire bottle of Chardonnay so my clarity may not be all it should be.
Depends on the Chardonnay - with a good one, you may achieve Kwisatz Haderach levels of perception.
The pink elephant already said that. I told it to fuck off.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
you're welcome. In fairness to me, I have downed an entire bottle of Chardonnay so my clarity may not be all it should be.
I’ve been drinking cocktails since half three, I’ve lost use of my legs but you are fortunate I can still type into my phone.
You are being polite but you see why teachers hated me so I didn’t go to school much except for sport and arts. I always argued back with them. I had long argument with History over date of the Great Depression starting as teacher insisted 1872, but books in the library said. 1873 or 1875.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
Was there anyone involved in Brexit who isn’t/wasn’t some kind of national security risk?
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
He's not a Russian spy. He's just a useful idiot, like Farage.
Was there anyone involved in Brexit who isn’t/wasn’t some kind of national security risk?
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
Utter bullshit. He might have been if he had died in 1939. But he genuinely and almost single handedly kept Britain in the war, when others would have sued for peace. He enabled final victory, as in the old saying Britain contributed time, Russia, lives and America material (or something like that). When he died the country mourned. Even the dockers, no friends of the Tories, bowed their cranes as the barge passed.
"Between 1940 and 1945 Winston Churchill was probably the most popular British prime minister of all time. In May 1945 his approval rating in the opinion polls, which had never fallen below 78 per cent, stood at 83 per cent."
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
Dundonians had the measure of the man.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
By voting him in at two by-elections and three consecutive general elections? If you say so.
- “… you will search in vain for a monument to Winston Churchill, despite the fact that he was Dundee’s MP for a full fourteen years, from 1908 until his humiliating defeat in 1922.
If I am right, there was such a plan but it came to nought. In the decades after that defeat, Dundee’s relationship with the great man was slightly fraught.
The froideur, it seems, was returned. In 1943, at the height of Churchill’s wartime power, councillors in Dundee agreed by a single vote to offer him the Freedom of the City. The offer was curtly declined.“
Have you been to Dundee? I wouldn't take the Freedom of the place if you paid me
It rankles with you that WSC had to represent one of your constituencies, lead your Fusiliers and win a world war for you. No good deed goes unpunished.
I’m one quarter Dundonian. I share the city’s distaste for the man who advocated gassing the Kurds.
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition.
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
“ Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In 1945, he limited the damage by the extent of his name recognition.
“ In 1906, on a somewhat larger share of the vote, admittedly under a rather different franchise, the Tories fell to just 157 seats when led by the bland Arthur Balfour. Churchill limited the damage partly by the extent of his name recognition. “
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
you're welcome. In fairness to me, I have downed an entire bottle of Chardonnay so my clarity may not be all it should be.
I’ve been drinking cocktails since half three, I’ve lost use of my legs but you are fortunate I can still type into my phone.
You are being polite but you see why teachers hated me so I didn’t go to school much except for sport and arts. I always argued back with them. I had long argument with History over date of the Great Depression starting as teacher insisted 1872, but books in the library said. 1873 or 1875.
I would have enjoyed teaching you, I like students who are knowledgeable and willing to bring that knowledge into a debate. Especially at A-level.
I don't like arseholes who constantly criticise the way I teach them and demand I set less work, as a lazy Year 8 group I have are about to find out, but that's a different problem.
So far today we have had accusations that Angela Merkel was recruited by the KGB and that Boris is a Russian spy. Whatever happened to the sensible level headed comments for which PB is renowned?
I abhor such sensationalist libel of our Dear Prime Minister, so calm down. All anyone is actually saying, is that he sucks Lebedev's cock and balls in hell.
So what is your response to a measured and evidence based charge like that?
One of the oddest myths of the twentieth century is that Churchill was popular. He was an odious little man, widely reviled. His only redeeming feature was that he was less odious than Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler and Franco.
Utter bullshit. He might have been if he had died in 1939. But he genuinely and almost single handedly kept Britain in the war, when others would have sued for peace. He enabled final victory, as in the old saying Britain contributed time, Russia, lives and America material (or something like that). When he died the country mourned. Even the dockers, no friends of the Tories, bowed their cranes as the barge passed.
"Between 1940 and 1945 Winston Churchill was probably the most popular British prime minister of all time. In May 1945 his approval rating in the opinion polls, which had never fallen below 78 per cent, stood at 83 per cent."
That completely fucks with Mike's theory about opinion polls.
I've heard it said, in various histories, that what people expected was a National Government led by Churchill, but with a much bigger Labour component.
Haven't seen the primary sources for that, though.
If confirmed, then (very) significant. There are Initial Reports coming out that a Ukrainian Counteroffensive has Secured the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk Region effectively breaking the Siege on the Ukrainian held Coastal city of Mariupol which is just South of the town and the Key Donetsk-Mariupol Highway. https://mobile.twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492
Comments
https://mobile.twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1502346783334318085
"The computer models would have said Russia wins in 72 to 96 hours," said Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger. They "cannot explain why Ukraine is still hanging on. Why is that?"
next?
Links
- Military YouTubers: Not What You Think (Russian air superiority is denied because they've forgotten how to SEAD ), Sandboxx (Russian armed forces have prioritised hi-tek over bread-and-butter and are suffering) Task and Purpose (Russians are willing to take high casualties and use artillery and so will win) US Modern War Institute (take their warchest! ), Military Aviation History (Russian Airforce not good why they are messing up, why German new defense funding is a big deal), Military History Visualised (German rearmament )
- History YouTubers: TimeGhostHistory (Ukraine is a country ), AlternateHistoryHub (NATO did not fuck Russia), Simple History (Russia invasion of the Ukraine 1917-21)
- Non YouTubers: Justin Bronk (here, here) War-Zone here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone
- Best YouTube I've seen so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEvbVoDiU0
- Raw data: DOD Background Briefings (here, digests by Dam Lamothe), HoL Research Briefing on the Ukraine CBP-9455 (here), internet disruption (here
Maps- Maps (battle notation): Jomini of the West https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1501417143312789508
- Maps (Dots): https://liveuamap.com/
- Maps (Lines): https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194 ,
- Maps (Arrows): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html , https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1502656507967864832 , https://putinukrainebriefing.substack.com/
- Maps (Choropleths): https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-03-05/los-mapas-de-la-guerra-en-ucrania-hoy-el-ejercito-ruso-avanza-por-el-sur-e-intenta-rodear-kiev.html , https://www.criticalthreats.org/locations/ukraine , https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates , https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-0888-4b47-9368-6bc4dfbccbf5
- Best Map I've seen so far: https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-03-05/los-mapas-de-la-guerra-en-ucrania-hoy-el-ejercito-ruso-avanza-por-el-sur-e-intenta-rodear-kiev.html
OtherI think you should stop posting when you are pissed Malcolm, you just become an obnoxious ned.
There's not much in such a culture to appeal to a Greater X Nationalist. For that you need a massive sense of betrayal, failure, hardship and general fucked up stuff.
I'd love to see this clearly, but I don't. Little bits nag at me. But even those little bits are wonderful.
Has BJO given up?
SLab 37%
SNP 36%
SCon 16%
SLD 4%
(YouGov/The Sun; 1,142; 4-7 August 2014)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
A stupid question; but as you say, poor figure for the PM (and LoTO).
- had bad inputs.
- failed to model some parameters.
- plain bad algorithms.
Perhaps it is that fighting head to head, the Ukrainians would have been smashed in a couple of days. That doesn't seem to be what they are doing.
At least in some places they seem to be manoeuvring and using strategic depth to extend the Russians supply lines. This may just be that the Russians advanced until there supply line became a problem and the Ukrainians gnawed at them all the while, rather than some brilliant Ukrainian plan.
Opinium would be a 10+ point lead if they hadn't changed the methodology, consistent with other polls.
Unless Starmer does something stupid Labour will lead for a while yet as the 2017 coalition has been re-built and the Red Wall has left the Tories for good.
When we actually try to do anything it will more often than not be half baked and shambolic, like the visa row or some of the lockdown decisions. But broadly the government's mood music on Ukraine will be right and occasionally bold: public policy in all major practical ways will be hostile to Putin with little caveat.
But Boris will simply refuse to see the tension between opposing Putin and taking money, industrialising the taking of money, from Russians near or far from Putin in increasingly opaque ways with minimal oversight. Cakeism. In the same way he didn't, doesn't, see the issue with Downing Street parties.
This is slow burn, Lord Lebedev probably isn't the killer blow here. As we all take on the chin a fuel crisis, the boycotting of Russian goods, the ruin of football clubs, and much else besides for the sake of Ukraine, I've no doubt at all that elements in CCO, another office under Boris's direction, are full speed ahead taking money from many rich Russians in opaque fashion, at least one of whom will turn out to be demonstrably in favour of the razing of Ukraine and of the lies underpinning that. And Boris doesn't see a problem and will defend any corrupt practice to the hilt.
If the ultimate breaking of all this is anything like it was for COVID, partygate will look like a speck of dust.
Typical Lib Dem, more faces than the town clock, forget promises and pocket any money they can regardless of provenance.
Away with you imposter of the truth. Hint , when you are posting crap , try to think of a better excuse when you are called out, as they say play the ball and not the man it only belittles you.
Links
- Military YouTubers: Not What You Think (Russian air superiority is denied because they've forgotten how to SEAD ), Sandboxx (Russian armed forces have prioritised hi-tek over bread-and-butter and are suffering) Task and Purpose (Russians are willing to take high casualties and use artillery and so will win) US Modern War Institute (take their warchest! ), Military Aviation History (Russian Airforce not good why they are messing up, why German new defense funding is a big deal), Military History Visualised (German rearmament )
- History YouTubers: TimeGhostHistory (Ukraine is a country ), AlternateHistoryHub (NATO did not fuck Russia), Simple History (Russia invasion of the Ukraine 1917-21)
- Non YouTubers: Justin Bronk (here, here) War-Zone (here)
- Best YouTube I've seen so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXEvbVoDiU0
- Raw data: DOD Background Briefings (here, digests by Dam Lamothe), HoL Research Briefing on the Ukraine CBP-9455 (here), internet disruption (here)
Maps- Maps (battle notation): Jomini of the West https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1501417143312789508
- Maps (Dots): https://liveuamap.com/
- Maps (Lines): https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/091194 ,
- Maps (Arrows): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html , https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1502656507967864832 , https://putinukrainebriefing.substack.com/
- Maps (Choropleths): https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-03-05/los-mapas-de-la-guerra-en-ucrania-hoy-el-ejercito-ruso-avanza-por-el-sur-e-intenta-rodear-kiev.html , https://www.criticalthreats.org/locations/ukraine , https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-conflict-updates , https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-0888-4b47-9368-6bc4dfbccbf5
- Best Map I've seen so far: https://elpais.com/internacional/2022-03-05/los-mapas-de-la-guerra-en-ucrania-hoy-el-ejercito-ruso-avanza-por-el-sur-e-intenta-rodear-kiev.html
Otherhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Maradona#1994_World_Cup
Boris led us to believe he was the new Winston Churchill, until Zelenskyy came along to show us what a real Winston Churchill looks and sounds like.
On topic. This will be viewed by the Conservative Party as the treason it is. This is the kicker: it’s not just his closeness to Putin’s inner circle here, it is how, it’s the grace and favour and friends with benefits Boris allowed himself to GET GROOMED by without a shred of awareness what was going on.
Although given the Liberal party's state in the period 1930-46 the word 'Liberal' could have meant many things. Plus, of course, they didn't field that many candidates - only 306. (Not that it led to any improvement when they fielded 475 in 1950 - rather the contrary.)
IshmaelZ is however correct in his assertion that the Bridges problem originally helped Euler lay the foundations for both fields, so I withdraw my objection.
But I think things will now be tight until GE2024, unless we have a recession and a lot more inflation in which case, double digit Labour leads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q6bu319AiY
He was undoubtedly popular, although he was also controversial. That's not to say he wasn't also a deeply flawed character. There was a reason why he was out of government from 1929 to 1939.
But he was a liberal from 1904? He was in the liberal government as minister for killing stuff.
In fairness, he despised Dundonians as much as they despised him.
Any views?
If I am right, there was such a plan but it came to nought. In the decades after that defeat, Dundee’s relationship with the great man was slightly fraught.
The froideur, it seems, was returned. In 1943, at the height of Churchill’s wartime power, councillors in Dundee agreed by a single vote to offer him the Freedom of the City. The offer was curtly declined.“
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3xkCTcZDNkg0DGHrgJWJ52t/dundee-the-beginning-of-me-and-modern-scotland
There are Initial Reports coming out that a Ukrainian Counteroffensive has Secured the town of Volnovakha in the Donetsk Region effectively breaking the Siege on the Ukrainian held Coastal city of Mariupol which is just South of the town and the Key Donetsk-Mariupol Highway.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502719026522431492
That’s the misleading paragraph I was replying to, before you marked my Homework a fail, sir. I see now what you mean, but it was read as he was in the party 1906 and it would have been worse result if he wasn’t 😕
When he died the country mourned. Even the dockers, no friends of the Tories, bowed their cranes as the barge passed.
It rankles with you that WSC had to represent one of your constituencies, lead your Fusiliers and win a world war for you. No good deed goes unpunished.
He almost signed for Sheffield United.
They got Alex Sabella instead.
I think however Robert Service's Penguin History Of Russia in the 20th Century has a list of further reading in it. But I haven't got it to hand and can't be bothered to go and look.
How couldn't it have been obvious to all that Putin was a two bit Fascist?
He kept speaking and acting like one.
We have been wilfully blind, and so have our leaders.
So. They must be ill-intentioned.
It absolves us of some of our guilt. And comforts us that they aren't all stupid. Just bad.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/election_01.shtml
You are being polite but you see why teachers hated me so I didn’t go to school much except for sport and arts. I always argued back with them. I had long argument with History over date of the Great Depression starting as teacher insisted 1872, but books in the library said. 1873 or 1875.
https://theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
I don't like arseholes who constantly criticise the way I teach them and demand I set less work, as a lazy Year 8 group I have are about to find out, but that's a different problem.
So what is your response to a measured and evidence based charge like that?
Haven't seen the primary sources for that, though.
Then there aren't any polls.
Then once the tide has turned, Labour are pretty nailed for the Land Fit For Heroes v2.