I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
Mostly our PMs have been poor since the end of ww2.
The best regarded have I guess been Atlee and Thatcher.
Blair will in my view get a much better press, as will Cameron. Brown, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan - hopeless to a man.
(I know I'm missing a couple, but I have no view on them)
Atlee seems to have been very competent administratively, though I feel the way he implemented his reforms has cast a very long shadow.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
I think anyone who isn't slightly queasy at the thought of 'aid' being used to inflict death on anybody, rather than, say, feed the starving masses, probably isn't bringing their best to the discussion.
There is a British thing - Military Aid to the Civil Authorities. Stuff ranging from riot control to helping sort out that eroding dam spillway a year or two back.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I mentioned this a week ago. The feeling when this started was that 'claims' would be triple or quadruple the 'claimed figure. Instead, we're at double for some. And since Oryx counts only ones they can visually show, they're bound to be an underestimate.
In the case of aircraft, it can sometimes be hard to say what is a hard 'kill' - see the ?Frogfoot? that landed last week with major damage. Probably claimed as a kill by Ukr. UAVs are so small you might not be able to find the evidence to photograph it - especially if it makes it back over the border.
Also, tanks are 'sexy', so they are more likely to be photographed than some sort of truck I cannot identify (cue usual 'journalists' tank recognition sheet' (*))
So IMV, Ukr are over-estimating. But nowhere near as much as I would have expected before this mess began. Oryx appear to have been doing a brilliant job.
I’ve heard about down and outs that spend their afternoons drinking on a park bench.
Those big two litre bottles of cider.
I used to share a house with the rep of a cider firm. He used to bring the dud bottles home and unload them on his housemates for free. Sometimes off, but sometimes just a damaged or squint label. Memories ...
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
The copper wires are only as far as local infrastructure anyway - it's all data from not very far from your house, now, usually.
Fibre on poles is a laugh. They *claim* to have come up with a version of fibre that can withstand the swaying in the wind without cracking....
We have fiber on polls in the US. It seems to work ok.
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
The copper wires are only as far as local infrastructure anyway - it's all data from not very far from your house, now, usually.
Fibre on poles is a laugh. They *claim* to have come up with a version of fibre that can withstand the swaying in the wind without cracking....
We have fiber on polls in the US. It seems to work ok.
The US, stupidly, puts everything on polls and then loses it in storms. Bury it in the ground! And build houses out of brick rather than wood while you’re at it.
follow your advice and we'd never have had the song Wichita Lineman.
Philistine
Heh. A hazard of using that word on this site. And now it’s too late to magically correct the typo.
Edit - And now I’ve replied to the wrong comment. Picking up on my “polls” for “poles”. Though is paying P&O day rates, one can’t also consider using “Poles”.
Wrong comment. You are having a tough time. Take a break. ETA now I look stupid. I quoted your original comment but it automagically updated.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
I think anyone who isn't slightly queasy at the thought of 'aid' being used to inflict death on anybody, rather than, say, feed the starving masses, probably isn't bringing their best to the discussion.
It is 'aid' to one side in a conflict. In the same way we gave 'aid' to Russia in WW2.
All 'aid' means is help. So we are giving one side military help. I'm a little queasy at the thought that someone supposedly intelligent wouldn't understand that.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
“ Current Russian backlog: 150+ entries.
Current Ukrainian backlog: Less than five entries”
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
I don't really think that's true. If you simply wanted to channel a few quid to an ex-politician, you could easily do that without a speaking engagement, and derive some benefit from it. Hell, you can get them to read a document (or not read it) and call it "consultancy" - and if they have a chat with a few contacts about whatever, that's potentially helpful.
I suspect that the speaker engagements wash their face - you are spending a lot but it attracts people who want to be seen with important people, and create a sheen of relevance and influence about you and your organisation.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
I think anyone who isn't slightly queasy at the thought of 'aid' being used to inflict death on anybody, rather than, say, feed the starving masses, probably isn't bringing their best to the discussion.
How do you know people aren't feeling queasy about it just because they can utilise an accurate description without having an attack of vapors?
Whether one supports the provision of lethal aid, sees it as a necessary evil or thinks only non lethal aid should be provded has little to do with not being as offended by the term itself, so I'm not sure why you've gone from not liking a phrase to judging the motivations of people who don't have an issue with the phrase. By your own words this wasn't about whether providing it was wrong or not, since you said it is better than letting them collapse, so what does it matter if someone calls it lethal aid or big ass bombs?
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
The copper wires are only as far as local infrastructure anyway - it's all data from not very far from your house, now, usually.
Fibre on poles is a laugh. They *claim* to have come up with a version of fibre that can withstand the swaying in the wind without cracking....
We have fiber on polls in the US. It seems to work ok.
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
The copper wires are only as far as local infrastructure anyway - it's all data from not very far from your house, now, usually.
Fibre on poles is a laugh. They *claim* to have come up with a version of fibre that can withstand the swaying in the wind without cracking....
We have fiber on polls in the US. It seems to work ok.
The US, stupidly, puts everything on polls and then loses it in storms. Bury it in the ground! And build houses out of brick rather than wood while you’re at it.
follow your advice and we'd never have had the song Wichita Lineman.
Philistine
Heh. A hazard of using that word on this site. And now it’s too late to magically correct the typo.
Edit - And now I’ve replied to the wrong comment. Picking up on my “polls” for “poles”. Though is paying P&O day rates, one can’t also consider using “Poles”.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
I don't really think that's true. If you simply wanted to channel a few quid to an ex-politician, you could easily do that without a speaking engagement, and derive some benefit from it. Hell, you can get them to read a document (or not read it) and call it "consultancy" - and if they have a chat with a few contacts about whatever, that's potentially helpful.
I suspect that the speaker engagements wash their face - you are spending a lot but it attracts people who want to be seen with people, and create a sheen of importance and influence about you and your organisation.
That's a mroe plausible explanation than some convoluted and highly visible means of paying for services provided, in a way which makes it pretty easy to check out if it is indeed such a payment.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
yes, but it's a context where twattish little plays on words are out of place. See also "level killing field."
Levelling the killing field worked, quite exactly, in Yugoslavia.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
Mostly our PMs have been poor since the end of ww2.
The best regarded have I guess been Atlee and Thatcher.
Blair will in my view get a much better press, as will Cameron. Brown, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan - hopeless to a man.
(I know I'm missing a couple, but I have no view on them)
Atlee seems to have been very competent administratively, though I feel the way he implemented his reforms has cast a very long shadow.
I'm no historian, but the Atlee government wasn't the right choice in 1945. Churchill, with his very many faults, would have been on top of the situation.
But we as a nation choose our governments, and we just have to live with those choices.
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
Landlines are fantastic. I don't know why they get such a bad press. And they work in a power cut, as an added bonus.
May I put in a plug for (not in) old-school pay phones?
Which nobody ever thinks about these days . . . except when your car breaks down AND you discover you cell has drained its charge . . .
When I was a kid, you could make unlimited long-distance call for a dime. Or less: when I moved to Louisiana, I was delighted to discover that in the Pelican State, pay-phone calls were only a nickel!
By that time (or shortly after), the drop at phone booths in other 49 states had gone up to a quarter, where it pretty much stayed until . . . the demise of the phone booth in the US. RIP
Carefully cut so you miss the bit when he was talking to the blokes just behind him (they spoke to him on their way through to their position and then doubled back to say hello to their neighbours). And to cut the nice chat he had with Biden who you see him just greeting with a wave.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
I think anyone who isn't slightly queasy at the thought of 'aid' being used to inflict death on anybody, rather than, say, feed the starving masses, probably isn't bringing their best to the discussion.
I'm getting the impression that you would feel a lot better about this situation if Ukraine received all these arms and made a token payment of a penny for them, just so the word "aid" could no longer be used. Do you think such a change would make the tiniest difference the Ukrainian civilians being killed by artillery or the soldiers on both sides being killed? Does calling the free supply of something "aid" really make the world worse? I cannot see it, and I don't think you really believe it. I think you're upset about something tangential but projecting it onto the phrase.
I'm not upset about it; I just haven't heard the phrase before, and don't like it.
This seems like a strange analysis to me - was anyone actually expecting sanctions imposed in the last couple of weeks to have changed Putin's mind? My assumption was it was seen as a long term measure rather than that it would immediately see a change in Russian war behavior. Is this really 'sobering insight'? Because it seems more like journalists surprised things don't happen at once.
No indication sanctions are working yet Nick Beake BBC News, Brussels
Despite the proclamations ringing out here at Nato HQ - support for Ukraine and a determination to punish Russia financially - I’ve just had a sobering insight from one Western official who was in the leaders’ meeting earlier.
Apparently, not one leader could give any indication that sanctions had begun to change Putin's mind or affect his behaviour in his war on Ukraine.
The Nato strategy depends on supplying the Ukrainians with weapons while waiting for the unprecedented financial penalties levied on Russia to persuade him to stop attacking his neighbour.
But for millions of Ukrainians - displaced, under fire and sleeping in bunkers for a month - it is the most terrifying of waits. More civilians will die as the war grinds on.
Yes and after being cut off from swift Russia is orienting its banking system towards China. It was always likely relying on sanctions would mean masses of Ukrainians dead at best
Sanctions have, apparently, fucked up Russian tank production.
I'm not sure that Johnson's rhetoric today about "ramping up lethal aid to Ukraine" is the vote-winner he thinks it is. The unpalatable truth is that most people are exhausted by the conflict and want it to go away.
'Lethal aid' is a rather disgusting phrase. Albeit that arming the Ukrainians is probably better than allowing them to collapse.
Why is it disgusting? - unlike a lot of terminology used in conflicts, it is pretty upfront and truthful.
Yes, it is.
Why are you getting so precious about it? It's aid in the sense that it's being given, and it's lethal in the sense that it kills people. It seems a little odd that you need the smelling salts over an honest descriptor. Are you just feeling queasy about the fact that it's going to be used against the people your boy Putin has sent in?
I think anyone who isn't slightly queasy at the thought of 'aid' being used to inflict death on anybody, rather than, say, feed the starving masses, probably isn't bringing their best to the discussion.
How do you know people aren't feeling queasy about it just because they can utilise an accurate description without having an attack of vapors?
Whether one supports the provision of lethal aid, sees it as a necessary evil or thinks only non lethal aid should be provded has little to do with not being as offended by the term itself, so I'm not sure why you've gone from not liking a phrase to judging the motivations of people who don't have an issue with the phrase. By your own words this wasn't about whether providing it was wrong or not, since you said it is better than letting them collapse, so what does it matter if someone calls it lethal aid or big ass bombs?
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Its hard to imagine right now the BBC becoming as good as Netflix, but why cap their ambitions?
If the BBC think they can rival Netflix in the future, good luck to them, if they can find the subscribers.
On current trend, give it a few more years, and Netflix will become as good as the BBC.
In a relatively few years, the BBC will cease non-internet broadcasting. The frequencies will be reused for other purposes.
The BBC will be a streaming service, delivering all content by that mechanism.
Yes, just as BT are abandoning phone lines, so we will to abandon traditional TV
Are they? They just installed fibre via our nearby telephone pole.
The copper phone lines will be gone within 10 years. Too expensive to maintain and no marginal utility for landline phones once the current generation of oldies die off.
Landlines are fantastic. I don't know why they get such a bad press. And they work in a power cut, as an added bonus.
May I put in a plug for (not in) old-school pay phones?
Which nobody ever thinks about these days . . . except when your car breaks down AND you discover you cell has drained its charge . . .
When I was a kid, you could make unlimited long-distance call for a dime. Or less: when I moved to Louisiana, I was delighted to discover that in the Pelican State, pay-phone calls were only a nickel!
By that time (or shortly after), the drop at phone booths in other 49 states had gone up to a quarter, where it pretty much stayed until . . . the demise of the phone booth in the US. RIP
This afternoon I was walking through town and saw a queue of attractive young ladies outside a red phone box. Slightly confused as to why they did not have mobiles at first, then I realised they were all there waiting for their turn to take selfies by the phone box. Definitely felt quite old after that.
Well remember press button A and then press Button B, two old pennies for a call
I remember the crossword clue "What you do if you give your girlfriend a ring and find she's already engaged" 5-6-1
This seems like a strange analysis to me - was anyone actually expecting sanctions imposed in the last couple of weeks to have changed Putin's mind? My assumption was it was seen as a long term measure rather than that it would immediately see a change in Russian war behavior. Is this really 'sobering insight'? Because it seems more like journalists surprised things don't happen at once.
No indication sanctions are working yet Nick Beake BBC News, Brussels
Despite the proclamations ringing out here at Nato HQ - support for Ukraine and a determination to punish Russia financially - I’ve just had a sobering insight from one Western official who was in the leaders’ meeting earlier.
Apparently, not one leader could give any indication that sanctions had begun to change Putin's mind or affect his behaviour in his war on Ukraine.
The Nato strategy depends on supplying the Ukrainians with weapons while waiting for the unprecedented financial penalties levied on Russia to persuade him to stop attacking his neighbour.
But for millions of Ukrainians - displaced, under fire and sleeping in bunkers for a month - it is the most terrifying of waits. More civilians will die as the war grinds on.
Yes and after being cut off from swift Russia is orienting its banking system towards China. It was always likely relying on sanctions would mean masses of Ukrainians dead at best
Sanctions have, apparently, fucked up Russian tank production.
This seems like a strange analysis to me - was anyone actually expecting sanctions imposed in the last couple of weeks to have changed Putin's mind? My assumption was it was seen as a long term measure rather than that it would immediately see a change in Russian war behavior. Is this really 'sobering insight'? Because it seems more like journalists surprised things don't happen at once.
No indication sanctions are working yet Nick Beake BBC News, Brussels
Despite the proclamations ringing out here at Nato HQ - support for Ukraine and a determination to punish Russia financially - I’ve just had a sobering insight from one Western official who was in the leaders’ meeting earlier.
Apparently, not one leader could give any indication that sanctions had begun to change Putin's mind or affect his behaviour in his war on Ukraine.
The Nato strategy depends on supplying the Ukrainians with weapons while waiting for the unprecedented financial penalties levied on Russia to persuade him to stop attacking his neighbour.
But for millions of Ukrainians - displaced, under fire and sleeping in bunkers for a month - it is the most terrifying of waits. More civilians will die as the war grinds on.
Yes and after being cut off from swift Russia is orienting its banking system towards China. It was always likely relying on sanctions would mean masses of Ukrainians dead at best
Sanctions have, apparently, fucked up Russian tank production.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
Carefully cut so you miss the bit when he was talking to the blokes just behind him (they spoke to him on their way through to their position and then doubled back to say hello to their neighbours). And to cut the nice chat he had with Biden who you see him just greeting with a wave.
When you watch the extended video, at some point basically every single one of the people is left "stranded" with nobody to talk to for a while looking awkward.
Even if there was a by election should be an easy Tory hold. Whittingdale is less controversial than Patterson and polls are much tighter now than last autumn when N Shropshire was
Wouldn't matter anyhow. It's a Conservative tradition to let the Lib Dems play with some seats for a bit after by-Elections. It's only fair - gets the Lib Dems on telly. For a bit. So people don't forget who they are. It's the decent thing to do with the added advantage that apart from plastering roads with speed-humps, or coming up with incomprehensible recycling schedules the Lib Dems can't really do a lot of damage to the borrowed toy. The Conservatives always get them back. No harm done.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
I don't really think that's true. If you simply wanted to channel a few quid to an ex-politician, you could easily do that without a speaking engagement, and derive some benefit from it. Hell, you can get them to read a document (or not read it) and call it "consultancy" - and if they have a chat with a few contacts about whatever, that's potentially helpful.
I suspect that the speaker engagements wash their face - you are spending a lot but it attracts people who want to be seen with important people, and create a sheen of relevance and influence about you and your organisation.
What you describe above does also happen. Consultancy, directorships etc. A speaking engagement is a simple and easy way to offer a generous thank you. There is no actual connection or paper trail, or suggestion that the recipient has ever been asked to do take an active role in advancing that company's interests.
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
Wiston Estate Rose is also worth a try, and not that expensive yet.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
One of the best moments we had at the office pre-COVID was a blind testing of sparkling wines across Europe and our French unit director picking Nytimber over the Champagne option (which was in the £50-60 range iirc). He's never been able to live it down.
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
I played that trick last summer. Had a few friends around for a minor celebration relating to new opportunities and served it without saying exactly what it was. I think i personally added a few quid to Nyetimber bottom line as a fair few guests went away ordering cases of the stuff.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Casulaties will be more, not less. The Russians are doing everything they should have done to capture a flower-throwing province. They're wildly fucked up if even the slightest person objects.
Only one stat matters though. Dead Putins - currently 0/1.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I think the chances of them using old photos are very slim. They are being recognised as a reliable source and vast numbers of people are looking at them and at the photos. If they make a mistake it will get picked up very quickly. They also have a vast army of geo-locators helping them out so I am reasonably comfortable using them and assuming they are erring on the low side.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
I don't really think that's true. If you simply wanted to channel a few quid to an ex-politician, you could easily do that without a speaking engagement, and derive some benefit from it. Hell, you can get them to read a document (or not read it) and call it "consultancy" - and if they have a chat with a few contacts about whatever, that's potentially helpful.
I suspect that the speaker engagements wash their face - you are spending a lot but it attracts people who want to be seen with important people, and create a sheen of relevance and influence about you and your organisation.
What you describe above does also happen. Consultancy, directorships etc. A speaking engagement is a simple and easy way to offer a generous thank you. There is no actual connection or paper trail, or suggestion that the recipient has ever been asked to do take an active role in advancing that company's interests.
And of course, you are deriving benefit, because the current incumbent can see their predecessor getting £20k for a speech when they're looking at the competing tenders on their desk.
The First Minister used a newspaper column to suggest that the Russian war of aggression against its smaller neighbour highlighted the importance of European Union membership. Writing in the New Statesman she said that Vladimir Putin's invasion 'cast new light on the realities of Brexit and the particular challenges posed to Scotland and the rest of the UK by being taken out of the world's biggest single market'. 'Indeed, the events of recent weeks have underlined the importance of independent countries cooperating in supranational organisations such as the EU,' she wrote.
So it's outrageous for Johnson to compare Ukraine to Brexit - in which there lies some truth. Same applies to wee Jimmy?
in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
Mostly our PMs have been poor since the end of ww2.
The best regarded have I guess been Atlee and Thatcher.
Blair will in my view get a much better press, as will Cameron. Brown, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan - hopeless to a man.
(I know I'm missing a couple, but I have no view on them)
Atlee seems to have been very competent administratively, though I feel the way he implemented his reforms has cast a very long shadow.
Interesting reflections.What makes Blair, Thatcher and Attlee stand out is that they changed Britain quite markedly for better or worse - social reform and NI peace and privatisation; breaking union power and boosting the City; creating the NHS and escaping from the shadow of WW2. The others on your list were generally serious people who had worked hard but ultimately failed at most of what they were trying to do.
Johnson is in a different category - he doesn't try hard to be taken seriously, and aims to jolly people along in a spirit of good humour and positivity. In good times and with an undemanding job, it works quite well. At the moment, well...
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I think the chances of them using old photos are very slim. They are being recognised as a reliable source and vast numbers of people are looking at them and at the photos. If they make a mistake it will get picked up very quickly. They also have a vast army of geo-locators helping them out so I am reasonably comfortable using them and assuming they are erring on the low side.
Also a lot is video as well as photo. Convincing fakery on that scale would be extremely difficult in so short a time - and if you follow the twitter account you’ll see that he rejects a large number of claims from propagandists (and calls the official Ukraine estimates propaganda, since they are inconsistent with known facts).
John 'make BBC like netflix' Whittingdale as head of Ofcom?
That John?
Like the BBC should be as lucky as becoming like Netflix.
In 20 years, the BBC will be a broadcasting footnote, entirely down to the risk-averse shit management they had in place when they had a world-leading brand they could have exploited.
It might only be 10.
I'm a huge fan of the BBC for all sorts of reasons not to do with 'business models' but your 'risk averse' of the last few years is spot on and has been baffling. I heard someone in dire circumstances inadvertently using a minor swear word and the listeners had to suffer an apology from the presenter before the interview could move on. Too many rules. It's got to start being grown up again.
PS. Have you seen Dark Water yet? Adrian Lyne aged 81!
Oh goody. That conflict did seem the first European/European adjacent war for some time where territory changed hands, so I guess it was a bit of a sampler for 2022.
As predicted, Baku is using the war in Ukraine to start a military escalation in NK. There was an Azerbaijani incursion in the direction of Parukh village of the Askeran region 2 hours ago. The coming hours will be crucial. There is a significant risk of even bigger escalation.
Some people are quite funny about sanctions. The fact they haven't yet affected Putin's decision making doesn't mean they are a bad idea. He has shown himself to be a grave threat to world peace and his regime needs to be weakened as much as possible. In time the sanctions will certainly cripple his ability to fight wars and pay for his own protection. So people in plenty of other countries can sleep easier (not much solace for Ukrainians I know). Are they enough? Well we are sending weapons to Ukraine. The rest comes down to what chances you are prepared to take with a nuclear armed power. Some people probably interpret the current crisis through the lens of 1940 (aka we will never surrender) whereas for others it feels more like 1962 and Cuba.
Another point on the sanction don't work myth. They failed to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well yes if you believe that was the purpose of the sanctions there. However they did weaken him, stop him launching more wars and building a WMD programme. As we found out in 2003. Whether on a cost benefit analysis the sanctions were for the better is a harder question to answer.
Has it been mentioned that Clarence Thomas went into hospital last Friday with flu like symptoms (but not Covid) - it was reported he was still in hospital on Tuesday but no update since.
He's missed oral arguments all this week. Apparently Breyer has commented that he is OK.
Also PredictIt market has it that Brown-Jackson only has a 34% chance of getting Committee approval - presumably because vote will be tied with equal number of Reps and Dems - but does this matter - PredictIt has a 77% chance she is confirmed by April 8 (and 99% chance someone is confirmed by Dec 31).
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Some people are quite funny about sanctions. The fact they haven't yet affected Putin's decision making doesn't mean they are a bad idea. He has shown himself to be a grave threat to world peace and his regime needs to be weakened as much as possible. In time the sanctions will certainly cripple his ability to fight wars and pay for his own protection. So people in plenty of other countries can sleep easier (not much solace for Ukrainians I know). Are they enough? Well we are sending weapons to Ukraine. The rest comes down to what chances you are prepared to take with a nuclear armed power. Some people probably interpret the current crisis through the lens of 1940 (aka we will never surrender) whereas for others it feels more like 1962 and Cuba.
Another point on the sanction don't work myth. They failed to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well yes if you believe that was the purpose of the sanctions there. However they did weaken him, stop him launching more wars and building a WMD programme. As we found out in 2003. Whether on a cost benefit analysis the sanctions were for the better is a harder question to answer.
One of the problems of sanctions is that they strengthen the position of those who control the scarce resources.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I think the chances of them using old photos are very slim. They are being recognised as a reliable source and vast numbers of people are looking at them and at the photos. If they make a mistake it will get picked up very quickly. They also have a vast army of geo-locators helping them out so I am reasonably comfortable using them and assuming they are erring on the low side.
Also a lot is video as well as photo. Convincing fakery on that scale would be extremely difficult in so short a time - and if you follow the twitter account you’ll see that he rejects a large number of claims from propagandists (and calls the official Ukraine estimates propaganda, since they are inconsistent with known facts).
And as noted upthread, they currently have a backlog of 150 Russian entries to be verified - and five Ukrainian.
Some people are quite funny about sanctions. The fact they haven't yet affected Putin's decision making doesn't mean they are a bad idea. He has shown himself to be a grave threat to world peace and his regime needs to be weakened as much as possible. In time the sanctions will certainly cripple his ability to fight wars and pay for his own protection. So people in plenty of other countries can sleep easier (not much solace for Ukrainians I know). Are they enough? Well we are sending weapons to Ukraine. The rest comes down to what chances you are prepared to take with a nuclear armed power. Some people probably interpret the current crisis through the lens of 1940 (aka we will never surrender) whereas for others it feels more like 1962 and Cuba.
Another point on the sanction don't work myth. They failed to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well yes if you believe that was the purpose of the sanctions there. However they did weaken him, stop him launching more wars and building a WMD programme. As we found out in 2003. Whether on a cost benefit analysis the sanctions were for the better is a harder question to answer.
One of the problems of sanctions is that they strengthen the position of those who control the scarce resources.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I think the chances of them using old photos are very slim. They are being recognised as a reliable source and vast numbers of people are looking at them and at the photos. If they make a mistake it will get picked up very quickly. They also have a vast army of geo-locators helping them out so I am reasonably comfortable using them and assuming they are erring on the low side.
Also a lot is video as well as photo. Convincing fakery on that scale would be extremely difficult in so short a time - and if you follow the twitter account you’ll see that he rejects a large number of claims from propagandists (and calls the official Ukraine estimates propaganda, since they are inconsistent with known facts).
And as noted upthread, they currently have a backlog of 150 Russian entries to be verified - and five Ukrainian.
All true - just saying that we don't have insight into the verification process...
The most fascinating part of this news clip from Putin’s 2003 visit to London, (where he was hosted by the Queen and greeted with a 41-gun salute), is the rare video of him speaking in English.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
Mostly our PMs have been poor since the end of ww2.
The best regarded have I guess been Atlee and Thatcher.
Blair will in my view get a much better press, as will Cameron. Brown, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan - hopeless to a man.
(I know I'm missing a couple, but I have no view on them)
Atlee seems to have been very competent administratively, though I feel the way he implemented his reforms has cast a very long shadow.
I'm no historian, but the Atlee government wasn't the right choice in 1945. Churchill, with his very many faults, would have been on top of the situation.
But we as a nation choose our governments, and we just have to live with those choices.
Not sure what you are referring to there?
Potsdam? Atlee played a major role in founding Nato.
Clearly no cost of living crisis among flint knapper of the world....
I can concur it good stuff.
The best pink fizz in the world? Gotta be up there.
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
I played that trick last summer. Had a few friends around for a minor celebration relating to new opportunities and served it without saying exactly what it was. I think i personally added a few quid to Nyetimber bottom line as a fair few guests went away ordering cases of the stuff.
I’ve been deliberating mixing a good chardonnay, Pinot noir and Pinot Meunier and whacking it through a soda stream and seeing if anyone realises - Domaine du Boulay here I come!
Interesting reflections.What makes Blair, Thatcher and Attlee stand out is that they changed Britain quite markedly for better or worse - social reform and NI peace and privatisation; breaking union power and boosting the City; creating the NHS and escaping from the shadow of WW2. The others on your list were generally serious people who had worked hard but ultimately failed at most of what they were trying to do.
Johnson is in a different category - he doesn't try hard to be taken seriously, and aims to jolly people along in a spirit of good humour and positivity. In good times and with an undemanding job, it works quite well. At the moment, well...
I think that's commedingly fair.
I'd also add that being PM nowadays is an exceedingly hard job - and perhaps impossible. You have people who have an almost pathological dislike of the PM, either for party-political reasons or because they don't like anyone in that role - the PM is always to blame. It is also under the microscope, using short twatter-like quotes or photos of complex situations, spread all over the country at the speed of a click.
Having said all that, Boris isn't one of our best PMs.
Some people are quite funny about sanctions. The fact they haven't yet affected Putin's decision making doesn't mean they are a bad idea. He has shown himself to be a grave threat to world peace and his regime needs to be weakened as much as possible. In time the sanctions will certainly cripple his ability to fight wars and pay for his own protection. So people in plenty of other countries can sleep easier (not much solace for Ukrainians I know). Are they enough? Well we are sending weapons to Ukraine. The rest comes down to what chances you are prepared to take with a nuclear armed power. Some people probably interpret the current crisis through the lens of 1940 (aka we will never surrender) whereas for others it feels more like 1962 and Cuba.
Another point on the sanction don't work myth. They failed to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well yes if you believe that was the purpose of the sanctions there. However they did weaken him, stop him launching more wars and building a WMD programme. As we found out in 2003. Whether on a cost benefit analysis the sanctions were for the better is a harder question to answer.
One of the problems of sanctions is that they strengthen the position of those who control the scarce resources.
Perhaps, but what else can be done?
I am not against sanctions, indeed the opposite, but we should be aware that they do have downsides and not just for businesses.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
Everyone remembers to do their jacket up apart from, guess who...
I doubt he can. He appears to be a little out of condition.
Who is the guy in the centre at the back? Erdogan?
Erdogan is left of Boris. I don’t know who it is. My first thought was a well tanned Judge Rinder.
I was hoping there'd be a list under the 'family photo' on the NATO site, but no luck. Notably they do have tabs for English, French, Russian and Ukrainian, though it only seems to be affecting the date listing on that page at least.
Everyone remembers to do their jacket up apart from, guess who...
I doubt he can. He appears to be a little out of condition.
Who is the guy in the centre at the back? Erdogan?
Erdogan is left of Boris. I don’t know who it is. My first thought was a well tanned Judge Rinder.
I was hoping there'd be a list under the 'family photo' on the NATO site, but no luck. Notably they do have tabs for English, French, Russian and Ukrainian, though it only seems to be affecting the date listing on that page at least.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Me too. Last time was Tory/Lab. This time we have a LD and a Green too.
Smarkets have a 63% Labour win. But they haven't been great as a predictor.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
What’s the situation behind the Seghill by election ?
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
What’s the situation behind the Seghill by election ?
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Me too. Last time was Tory/Lab. This time we have a LD and a Green too.
Smarkets have a 63% Labour win. But they haven't been great as a predictor.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
What’s the situation behind the Seghill by election ?
Tory councillor died.
Thanks.
I’ve visited the area a few times. It’s nice round there. Doesn’t strike me as natural labour territory.
According to NYT bit I linked, not only are the Russian foot soldiers using unsecure radio and normal cell phones, apparently even General are communicating via this method. They claim that one of those killed was as a direct result of being tracked via cell phone communications.
If the NYT can get this info, the likes of the US / UK intelligence services must be having a field day with it. No wonder the Ukranian SoF lot appear to know a hell of a lot about when and where to hit things.
Been comparing the Ukrainian MOD figures for Russian casualties (first number) with the confirmed kills from Oryx (number in parentheses).
One would certainly expect the numbers of actual casualties to be way higher than the Oryx figure, given each claimed kill there has to have been photographed and identified as a unique vehicle. But what do PBers think: given the lower Oryx figures, are the UkrMOD figures credible?
UkrMOD/(Oryx)
KIA: 15,800 (no number) Tanks: 530 (280) APVs: 1597 (600) Artillery: 280 (93) MLRS: 82 (33) AA Sys: 47 (51) Aircraft: 108 (15) Helos: 124 (35) UAVs: 50 (16) Trucks: 1033 (580) Gas tankers: 72 (no separate number)
Because, if the UkrMOD numbers are right, the Russians have already lost 40%+ of their tanks!!!
I suspect the truth lies somewhere between the two (which on reflection is a stupidly obvious statement ). As you say the Oryx numbers only deal with positively verifiable numbers with photographic evidence to support it but there will be large numbers of vehicles for which it is impossible to get such verification. As a rule of thumb I have been assuming we should inflate the Oryx numbers by maybe 50% - so they are only recording 2/3rds of the actual losses. Whilst clearly that still doesn't get us to the Ukrainian numbers I think it is a pretty good rough guide.
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Of course, that assumes that the Oryx numbers are accurate. They link to photos of various things, but there is no way to verify the chain of evidence further. Given that there have been lots of misuse of old photos as propaganda on the Internet...
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I think the chances of them using old photos are very slim. They are being recognised as a reliable source and vast numbers of people are looking at them and at the photos. If they make a mistake it will get picked up very quickly. They also have a vast army of geo-locators helping them out so I am reasonably comfortable using them and assuming they are erring on the low side.
Also a lot is video as well as photo. Convincing fakery on that scale would be extremely difficult in so short a time - and if you follow the twitter account you’ll see that he rejects a large number of claims from propagandists (and calls the official Ukraine estimates propaganda, since they are inconsistent with known facts).
And as noted upthread, they currently have a backlog of 150 Russian entries to be verified - and five Ukrainian.
All true - just saying that we don't have insight into the verification process...
Well, they provide embedded links to the original video or photo of every single item on the list. And there’s running commentary on the Twitter feed, which you can run back through to get an idea of methodology.
It’s more open, documented and checkable than any other source out there, and as noted upthread, there are good reasons to think the numbers are probably a bit on the low side*.
*Especially true of Ukraine losses, since few Russian soldiers on active duty will have the ability to upload photos to the internet, and Ukrainians are less likely to advertise their own losses.
The PM admitted he was clueless about football during his press conference at the NATO summit. You’d think he’d have some clue about domestic bids for major domestic championships, nonetheless. Or the wit to check.
I expect he will have retired to the International lecture circuit and received the freedom of Ukraine before then
I do find it incredible that ex-PMs are rewarded so well for such things. There are very few politicians that I'd care to spend time listening to.
It's for services rendered whilst in post isn't it? Would be fairly easy to see whether the companies booking former politicos for these gigs had been the recipient of Government largesse during their tenure. Nice British way of doing things. It's the people who have to be in the audience that I feel sorry for. Though at least Boris would probably give value for money.
Mostly our PMs have been poor since the end of ww2.
The best regarded have I guess been Atlee and Thatcher.
Blair will in my view get a much better press, as will Cameron. Brown, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan - hopeless to a man.
(I know I'm missing a couple, but I have no view on them)
Cameron worse, for his reverse Midas touch on Europe, Scotland, NHS, UC; Brown better, for leading the response to the GFC; Wilson, possibly better, for OU, abortion, hanging, Vietnam, though he is often derided as a tactician rather than strategist. But Ted Heath, by taking us into Europe, is arguably the most consequential of all those.
The PM admitted he was clueless about football during his press conference at the NATO summit. You’d think he’d have some clue about domestic bids for major domestic championships, nonetheless. Or the wit to check.
If you had limited your post to six words it would have got a like from me.
Each day that this war grinds on I find myself less and less impressed with the Russian Army. Notwithstanding their obvious paucity of training and effective leadership, the Russians also appear severely deficient in terms of logistics, planning and basic staff work. The fact that these recordings even exist is testament to their sloppiness. Communications Security (or COMSEC) is among the most basic of safeguards any modern military must adhere to, yet they're either blithely unaware (or simply don't care). No use of encryption, passing coordinates in the clear - their sheer carelessness and stupidity is mind boggling. And the Russians are using cell phones? Cell phones? This isn't an "army," it's a motley collection of sniveling kids driving tanks they barely know how to operate who are obviously in way over their heads.
According to NYT bit I linked, not only are the Russian foot soldiers using unsecure radio and normal cell phones, apparently even General are communicating via this method. They claim that one of those killed was as a direct result of being tracked via cell phone communications.
If the NYT can get this info, the likes of the US / UK intelligence services must be having a field day with it. No wonder the Ukranian SoF lot appear to know a hell of a lot about when and where to hit things.
That was being reported from the start.
If they are matching triangulated transmissions with data from JSTARS radar aircraft, etc, then the US has a real-time map of who, what, where and when for the Russians.
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
What’s the situation behind the Seghill by election ?
Does seem mad TBH, I can't think of a safer Tory constituency apart from maybe Castle Point, Boston and Skegness or South Holland even considering the local LD strength in neighbouring Chelmsford and Rayleigh.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
I think the Conservatives will hold Seghill with Seaton Delaval.
Yes possibly wishful thinking but the majority was only 9% in a two horse race in 2021 and it was more of a Conservative surge due to squeezing of UKIP rather than a Labour collapse.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
The really big swing took place in 2017. Over 23%. Labour got 72%+ in 2013.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aid_to_the_civil_authorities
The sun shone and life was goooooooooooood
I used to share a house with the rep of a cider firm. He used to bring the dud bottles home and unload them on his housemates for free. Sometimes off, but sometimes just a damaged or squint label. Memories ...
ETA now I look stupid. I quoted your original comment but it automagically updated.
All 'aid' means is help. So we are giving one side military help. I'm a little queasy at the thought that someone supposedly intelligent wouldn't understand that.
It is excellent. World class
https://www.waitrosecellar.com/rose-wine/nyetimber-rose-nv-591150
“ Current Russian backlog: 150+ entries.
Current Ukrainian backlog: Less than five entries”
Posted this evening.
I suspect that the speaker engagements wash their face - you are spending a lot but it attracts people who want to be seen with important people, and create a sheen of relevance and influence about you and your organisation.
Whether one supports the provision of lethal aid, sees it as a necessary evil or thinks only non lethal aid should be provded has little to do with not being as offended by the term itself, so I'm not sure why you've gone from not liking a phrase to judging the motivations of people who don't have an issue with the phrase. By your own words this wasn't about whether providing it was wrong or not, since you said it is better than letting them collapse, so what does it matter if someone calls it lethal aid or big ass bombs?
I can concur it good stuff.
But we as a nation choose our governments, and we just have to live with those choices.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/22/russian-tank-manufacturer-sanctions-ukraine-war/
If true, this means the Russians will be relying, more and more, on older and older tanks. With poor armour and missing ERA systems.
Press Button B
I do in particular think that the Oryx numbers for aircraft are likely to be a substantial underestimate based both on the difficulty in verification for downed or damaged aircraft and the ongoing lack of Russian control of airspace which speaks of them having suffered considerable losses and not wanting to risk more.
Local by elections are also back tonight.
I predict two strong LD holds in Test Valley and Horsham, a Labour hold in Thanet and potentially a Labour gain in Northumberland.
The Battle of Maldon would be epic…
Also it consistently surprises. You give it to friends and the older and less up-to-speed presume it is French or maybe Italian or even American, but it is British and English and ours and it is exquisite. Pricey, however
I'm not saying they are unreliable - just that I wouldn't take their numbers as gospel either.
I’m always looking out for it round here.
Only one stat matters though. Dead Putins - currently 0/1.
So it's outrageous for Johnson to compare Ukraine to Brexit - in which there lies some truth. Same applies to wee Jimmy?
Interesting reflections.What makes Blair, Thatcher and Attlee stand out is that they changed Britain quite markedly for better or worse - social reform and NI peace and privatisation; breaking union power and boosting the City; creating the NHS and escaping from the shadow of WW2. The others on your list were generally serious people who had worked hard but ultimately failed at most of what they were trying to do.
Johnson is in a different category - he doesn't try hard to be taken seriously, and aims to jolly people along in a spirit of good humour and positivity. In good times and with an undemanding job, it works quite well. At the moment, well...
Convincing fakery on that scale would be extremely difficult in so short a time - and if you follow the twitter account you’ll see that he rejects a large number of claims from propagandists (and calls the official Ukraine estimates propaganda, since they are inconsistent with known facts).
PS. Have you seen Dark Water yet? Adrian Lyne aged 81!
As predicted, Baku is using the war in Ukraine to start a military escalation in NK. There was an Azerbaijani incursion in the direction of Parukh village of the Askeran region 2 hours ago. The coming hours will be crucial. There is a significant risk of even bigger escalation.
https://twitter.com/Tigartsakh/status/1506991457818791938
Another point on the sanction don't work myth. They failed to topple Saddam in Iraq. Well yes if you believe that was the purpose of the sanctions there. However they did weaken him, stop him launching more wars and building a WMD programme. As we found out in 2003. Whether on a cost benefit analysis the sanctions were for the better is a harder question to answer.
He's missed oral arguments all this week. Apparently Breyer has commented that he is OK.
Also PredictIt market has it that Brown-Jackson only has a 34% chance of getting Committee approval - presumably because vote will be tied with equal number of Reps and Dems - but does this matter - PredictIt has a 77% chance she is confirmed by April 8 (and 99% chance someone is confirmed by Dec 31).
The most fascinating part of this news clip from Putin’s 2003 visit to London, (where he was hosted by the Queen and greeted with a 41-gun salute), is the rare video of him speaking in English.
https://twitter.com/biannagolodryga/status/1507039075336921094
The New York Times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOmYi96cU1M
Potsdam? Atlee played a major role in founding Nato.
I'd also add that being PM nowadays is an exceedingly hard job - and perhaps impossible. You have people who have an almost pathological dislike of the PM, either for party-political reasons or because they don't like anyone in that role - the PM is always to blame. It is also under the microscope, using short twatter-like quotes or photos of complex situations, spread all over the country at the speed of a click.
Having said all that, Boris isn't one of our best PMs.
A Labour loss can't be ruled out in Thanet either given the circumstances of the disqualification but I still predict a hold there.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/photos_193597.htm
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/NINTCHDBPICT000627852174.jpg?w=1320
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_Costa
Smarkets have a 63% Labour win.
But they haven't been great as a predictor.
Boris Johnson backs idea of Ukraine bye to World Cup - which could eliminate Scotland
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/03/24/boris-johnson-makes-embarrassing-euro-2028-gaffe-backs-ukraine/
LD's and Green's have surely made a case.
I’ve visited the area a few times. It’s nice round there. Doesn’t strike me as natural labour territory.
If the NYT can get this info, the likes of the US / UK intelligence services must be having a field day with it. No wonder the Ukranian SoF lot appear to know a hell of a lot about when and where to hit things.
And there’s running commentary on the Twitter feed, which you can run back through to get an idea of methodology.
It’s more open, documented and checkable than any other source out there, and as noted upthread, there are good reasons to think the numbers are probably a bit on the low side*.
*Especially true of Ukraine losses, since few Russian soldiers on active duty will have the ability to upload photos to the internet, and Ukrainians are less likely to advertise their own losses.
You’d think he’d have some clue about domestic bids for major domestic championships, nonetheless. Or the wit to check.
Speaking of clueless, what's the difference between a competent budget and a match winning England batting performance?
One is something that will never happen and the other's something to do with politics.
Each day that this war grinds on I find myself less and less impressed with the Russian Army. Notwithstanding their obvious paucity of training and effective leadership, the Russians also appear severely deficient in terms of logistics, planning and basic staff work. The fact that these recordings even exist is testament to their sloppiness. Communications Security (or COMSEC) is among the most basic of safeguards any modern military must adhere to, yet they're either blithely unaware (or simply don't care). No use of encryption, passing coordinates in the clear - their sheer carelessness and stupidity is mind boggling. And the Russians are using cell phones? Cell phones? This isn't an "army," it's a motley collection of sniveling kids driving tanks they barely know how to operate who are obviously in way over their heads.
*Autocorrect keeps trying to change it to Maldonado.
If they are matching triangulated transmissions with data from JSTARS radar aircraft, etc, then the US has a real-time map of who, what, where and when for the Russians.
Labour got 72%+ in 2013.