I see three plausible scenarios for the Russian future:
1. North Korea 2. Imperial Reboot 3. Jubilee
Since Ukraine is resolved to fight, the choice of a Russian historical track ultimately depends upon the resolve of the West. Today I'll outline the North Korea scenario 🧵
20% minimum tax on household wealth of over $100 million.
Democrats pushing tax rises on the rich as usual
Only 20%
It’s not even, as I understand it, a wealth tax. It’s an income tax that’s levied on the very very wealthy.
The average income tax paid by these plutocrats was about 9% apparently.
HYUFD talking out of his hat as usual.
It is to the extent that wealthy households not paying 20% of their income in tax will have to pay this top up instead out of their assets and capital to get to the 20% tax
It's an income tax. They pay it out of income. You pay tax at 20% or greater on your income, do have to dig into your assets? How is it ever a wealth tax? Bonkers.
If you own a business that goes up in value but you plan never to sell, then you are being taxed on your wealth
Well I don't know what the rules are in America, but unless there is a capital change (eg revaluation, share issue etc) the reason a business goes up in value is because of the income.
Let’s say a company makes revenues of $100m and grows to $110m with consistent 20% margins and a 10x multiple
Its profits have gone from $20m to $22m and its value from $200m to $220m.
So they are saying you need to pay tax on $20m of increase in value ie $4m at a 20% rate.
But even if you pull all of the income from the business (which is probably not appropriate) your income has only gone up by $2m, so your taxes have gone up at twice the rate of your income
Is that what they are saying. I don't know the American rules but it is not what HYUFD said and you are now talking about taxing unrealised capital gains and not income which is bonkers.
HYUFD was referring to tax on income not unrealised capital. The capital element simply being the metric to decide if the higher income tax rate applied to income. Again I am referring to what HYUFD said. You should only be taxed on income (whether realised or not) and realised capital gains.
They used as a justification that the wealthiest only paid 8% on their income plus unrealised income.
I haven’t looked into the detail but there are 2 options:
1) they are taxing unrealised gains (which is bonkers); or 2) they are manipulating statistics to suggest that the wealthy are paying a very low tax rate by inflating the denominator (which is dodgy as f*ck but sadly plausible)
I haven't looked into the details at all. Just reacted to hyufd's nonsense post. It sounds like you don't know either although you have a better idea than me. If 1) I agree completely with you and that is what @rcs1000 said also. I don't really fully understand your point 2.
I don't think we disagree. I was simply making the point that if the tax is just on INCOME you don't need to go into capital if you are paying only 20% other than if the income is fully reinvested, but even then tax is always payable currently unless you have some relief like capital allowances.
On point 2 say someone pays $20 in tax, has $100 in income and $100 in additional unrealised gains.
They are paying 20% in income tax.
But the politico is claiming they are paying only a 10% rate to try and manipulate the public (“it’s outrageous they are paying so little!”) by saying it is 20/(100+100)=10% while ignoring the fact that they have no legal requirement to pay tax on unrealised gains at present
Ok. Yes that is bonkers if true, but surely people don't fall for that.
Most people don’t read past the headline (which stated 8% and used it as a justification for the minimum 20% rate because it was less than firefighters)
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
What actually decides if something is taken? If they claim taken, like sneaky snake would, we would disbelieve them until what proves it exactly? I genuinely don’t know that answer so would like to know.
It's encirclement followed by clearing. Flat by flat searches for weaponry and enemy combatants. Seeing as Mariupol had about 14k Ukranian army there, and the fact they're not giving up even though they're cut off - well the city must really be starting to hum now.
They can't give up. If they do then Russian forces will be released to move into the Donbass or try and hook up the Dneiper again, and all the civilians left in Mariupol will be ethnically cleansed.
They have nothing to lose, except their lives of course.
I thank my lucky stars I don't have to face such terrible dilemmas.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
Starmer doesn't enthuse, as you say. But there will be, I think, a much stronger 'let's kick out this lot' effect than in recent general elections.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
Starmer doesn't enthuse, as you say. But there will be, I think, a much stronger 'let's kick out this lot' effect than in recent general elections.
Perhaps. 14 years is a long run.
Also, I think there are some positives (not many) of a Labour administration because they can draw the democratic sting of younger voters concerns and do reforms the Tories cannot, so providing more social stability in the long run.
Basically, there's a small c conservative case for a non-Conservative administration.
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
What actually decides if something is taken? If they claim taken, like sneaky snake would, we would disbelieve them until what proves it exactly? I genuinely don’t know that answer so would like to know.
It's encirclement followed by clearing. Flat by flat searches for weaponry and enemy combatants. Seeing as Mariupol had about 14k Ukranian army there, and the fact they're not giving up even though they're cut off - well the city must really be starting to hum now.
They can't give up. If they do then Russian forces will be released to move into the Donbass or try and hook up the Dneiper again, and all the civilians left in Mariupol will be ethnically cleansed.
They have nothing to lose, except their lives of course.
I thank my lucky stars I don't have to face such terrible dilemmas.
Zelenskiy offered them the choice of surrendering, as he felt unable to ask for what is likely to be the ultimate sacrifice for most of those fighting. They refused.
Given Russian description of all Mariupol's defenders as Nazis, they are unlikely to be treated well if captured.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
Starmer doesn't enthuse, as you say. But there will be, I think, a much stronger 'let's kick out this lot' effect than in recent general elections.
Perhaps. 14 years is a long run.
Also, I think there are some positives (not many) of a Labour administration because they can draw the democratic sting of younger voters concerns and do reforms the Tories cannot, so providing more social stability in the long run.
Basically, there's a small c conservative case for a non-Conservative administration.
If Boris remains I foresee a,Labour minority government - if he goes all bets are off.
I'm going to make a longer comment later on what I think about Russia/Ukraine and a possible deal but can we please accept that the kind of deal we are talking about is not akin to the Good Friday agreement but more to the deal we made with Stalin in 1945 - albeit on a much smaller scale.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
Starmer doesn't enthuse, as you say. But there will be, I think, a much stronger 'let's kick out this lot' effect than in recent general elections.
Perhaps. 14 years is a long run.
Also, I think there are some positives (not many) of a Labour administration because they can draw the democratic sting of younger voters concerns and do reforms the Tories cannot, so providing more social stability in the long run.
Basically, there's a small c conservative case for a non-Conservative administration.
If Boris remains I foresee a,Labour minority government - if he goes all bets are off.
Yes, that's possible.
I certainly don't expect a 1997 style wipeout because there's still a stark values divide in the electorate and Labour, once in office, will start implementing their own ideology - veganism, net zero dogma, open borders, lots more petty regulation in everyday life, and Wokeism to the max - and plenty of voters won't like it.
However, they might also ease the financial doom for young people, who also happen to like much of that stuff, and that'll sustain them in office for a while.
Does anyone know the case of BA Flight 149, which landed in Kuwait just as the Iraqis invaded?
There’s a new podcast just landed which seems pretty good (I’m on Ep 2).
The gist of it, is that the plane was allegedly commandeered at Heathrow by the British government and used to fly people (SAS) and supplies to Kuwait, after BA wanted to cancel the flight because of the war. The plane itself (a Boeing 747) was destroyed by the Iraqis a couple of days later, and the SAS had to evacuate the crew and other passengers from Kuwait. BA were a little miffed to lose their rather expensive capital asset.
I seem to recall that Macron - Marine LePen had a similar poll last time around in the build up to the first round. But then when the run-off began she started to lag, and was walloped in the finale 66% to 33%.
Edit: Indeed that is correct. This time 5 years ago Marine LePen actually led Macron in several polls:
Oryx's confirmed Russian equipment losses have gone over 2000 today, with the tank losses (318) now at more than 25% of the initial estimate of 1250 tanks.
And still saying "the amount of equipment destroyed is significantly higher than recorded here"....
Last update I saw said he had another 175 Russian losses to record......
The attrition rate is such that if the Ukrainians weren't losing kit at a reasonable whack too (though apparently less quickly than Russia) you might expect the fightback to start gathering pace quite quickly. A constant rate of losses to a diminishing stock, plus what must surely be a very tired and sleep-deprived army, points to some kind of tipping point. Unless Ukraine is stretched beyond what we realise (which is possible).
Yes, unless the Ukrainian army is also tottering near the point of collapse, then you would expect to see wholesale collapses of the Russian front within the next week or two. Michael Kofman made that point in a podcast recently.
If that's the case, and if Putin accepts the reality of that, then I think we would see a unilateral declaration of a ceasefire by Russia as soon as they have secured Mariupol.
What that overlooks is that Russia has deep reserves of additional forces that were never committed to the Ukraine in the first place, whereas Ukraine has no reserves other than what the West is willing to supply them with. Putin is not going to hold back from committing more of those forces if his own survival depends on it.
The West isn't willing to supply any heavy equipment. For example, even 1% of NATO's stock of tanks is apparently beyond the Pale for an intimidated Biden. So in so far as Ukraine has been able to maintain its stock of servicable AFVs, it's had to rely on capturing and reusing salvagable equipment from the Russians, which reportedly it has done with some success so far. At least tanks can sometimes be salvaged, in contrast to planes. And the idea that Russia will fail to learn from past mistakes and go on repeating the failures of the first month is a big and questionable assumption on which I think the issue will turn.
I don't think that's true.
Firstly, they will have sent their best forces in, hence the fact that many of the officer casualties we know about are among their paratroopers. (It's also worth noting that much of the Russian army - by numbers - is conscripts.)
Secondly, Russia has lots of rebellious edges. The Chechens will be itching to rebel again, and they will be far from the only ones.
Thirdly, Putin will be scared for his own safety. A substantial portion of the armed forces are tied down as Putin's personal guard. He can't use these troops without risking himself.
What exactly don't you think is true?
Clearly the Ukranians aren't being resupplied with any heavy weaponry and aren't going to have much left now that's still uncommitted on which to draw on. Their stocks are going to be degraded unless the Russians fail to learn from their mistakes and carry on abandoning equipment.
As for the Russians, I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. So why assume that they allocated anything beyond what they thought would be necessary and that there's not a lot there left still to draw on, at least in terms of material? So it's wrong in my book to measure Russia's losses only as a proportion of what they initially thought was necessary to use to win an easy war, and assume that they have nothing else substantial to draw upon.
The historical precedent is that the Finns initially prevailed against the Soviet Union in the first months of the 1939-40 Winter War, before being eventually ground down by weight of numbers allied to the Soviets eventually changing their flawed tactics.
That doesn't mean that Ukraine will not be able to continue to hold things at a near stalemate with Russia able to claim further territory only at an ultimately unacceptable cost. But I think that's the best that Ukraine can hope for, losing a substantial part of the country in the process, and the supply risks mean that there's still a danger that they won't be able to achieve even that.
“ I think it's generally accepted that they thought initially that the invasion was going to be a cakewalk. “
Is that true? I always presumed each time I heard that it’s part of the information war, up to now I thought it would take ages for Russia to take key bits of infrastructure and get into a sort of position to be able to and suppress the main cities. It’s only now I’m beginning to think it’s taking a while, especially in the waterfront theatre.
I havn’t seen a post from Yokes for ages, but they did say let’s assess after two weeks just how slow it’s going. So was a week or two ever really that realistic?
As examples then, I was too young when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan, can’t rember the time lInes, did we have the mission wrapped up in a week?
Another example as counterfactual, this war other way round, NATO taking Ukraine whose backed by Russia and friends of Russia can keep up supply of “defensive weapons” you would be disappointed if we wouldn’t have it done and dusted in week or two? Surely the movement of what you need of heavy stuff where you need it in the country takes longer than that on its own?
Maybe also now in 2020s satellite maps on one hand and precision bombing based on that intel helps take the effective blitzkrieging out of warfare - is that an interesting suggestion? It’s fair to say those whose job it is to defend UK, US NATO members etc have filled note books of useful stuff, this has been a helpful boon to them?
Russia will take mariupol soon...that will free up troops....After that who knows
What actually decides if something is taken? If they claim taken, like sneaky snake would, we would disbelieve them until what proves it exactly? I genuinely don’t know that answer so would like to know.
It's encirclement followed by clearing. Flat by flat searches for weaponry and enemy combatants. Seeing as Mariupol had about 14k Ukranian army there, and the fact they're not giving up even though they're cut off - well the city must really be starting to hum now.
They can't give up. If they do then Russian forces will be released to move into the Donbass or try and hook up the Dneiper again, and all the civilians left in Mariupol will be ethnically cleansed.
They have nothing to lose, except their lives of course.
I thank my lucky stars I don't have to face such terrible dilemmas.
Zelenskiy offered them the choice of surrendering, as he felt unable to ask for what is likely to be the ultimate sacrifice for most of those fighting. They refused.
Given Russian description of all Mariupol's defenders as Nazis, they are unlikely to be treated well if captured.
Considering that Mariopol has been besieged for 29 days, the Ukranian fighters there must be getting very short of supplies. I cannot see that they can fight on for much longer, whatever their will.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
On the taxation of unrealised capital gains. There is a straightforward solution. Taxing the balls out of leverage against equity. Not just for the billionaires but for the mom and pop day traders too, who are unwittingly distorting the market through margined loans and contributing to increased volatility and even systemic risk.
I seem to recall that Macron - Marine LePen had a similar poll last time around in the build up to the first round. But then when the run-off began she started to lag, and was walloped in the finale 66% to 33%.
Edit: Indeed that is correct. This time 5 years ago Marine LePen actually led Macron in several polls:
Hard to know, but it does seem to me that being suspiciously pro-Putin hasn't really harmed Le Pen, Zemmour or Melenchon. It doesn't seem to be the vote lower that we assume.
Suspicion of NATO, EU and the West's foreign policy in general does lead people into seeing both sides, even in a naked war of aggression like this. That seems to be quite common in African and Asian media too.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
The dislike of female body hair is an odd one that has caught on over recent decades, and a dubious one in my view. The sexual aesthetic of pre-pubescence by removing hair carries disturbing baggage, in men too.
Or perhaps I am just a hairy chested throwback to the Seventies/Eighties.
I'm going to make a longer comment later on what I think about Russia/Ukraine and a possible deal but can we please accept that the kind of deal we are talking about is not akin to the Good Friday agreement but more to the deal we made with Stalin in 1945 - albeit on a much smaller scale.
It will be an interesting moment, a pivotal one in fact, when the guns are quietened and Russia presents terms that would include keeping their murderous spoils such as Mariupol. Do the Germans really have the stomach to shut out German gas? The French to walk away from their profitable investments (Total etc…)? The Swiss and English to turn away Russian money?
Strategically the continued failure of Europe to comprehensively sanction Russian hydrocarbons will be the light that Putin will still think he can walk into. Not many had odds on Boris surviving his criminality on such emotive an issue as lockdown breaches. And yet there he still is. Hate to say it but Putin will be thinking he just needs to see through the next 6 months and we’re back into winter. A Bastard that the West will have to do business with. If so, odds on that Manny is the first Western leader to be pictured with him again.
The elephant in the room is the indiscriminate use of chemical / radiological weapons, or the assassination of Zelensky. If Putin crosses those lines then there’s no way back even for those that take an entirely transactional view of foreign affairs.
I seem to recall that Macron - Marine LePen had a similar poll last time around in the build up to the first round. But then when the run-off began she started to lag, and was walloped in the finale 66% to 33%.
Edit: Indeed that is correct. This time 5 years ago Marine LePen actually led Macron in several polls:
Hard to know, but it does seem to me that being suspiciously pro-Putin hasn't really harmed Le Pen, Zemmour or Melenchon. It doesn't seem to be the vote lower that we assume.
Suspicion of NATO, EU and the West's foreign policy in general does lead people into seeing both sides, even in a naked war of aggression like this. That seems to be quite common in African and Asian media too.
Good post and I'd love it if some others on here could see that.
As you know, the French have long held that independent attitude to foreign policy, going their own way in sometimes infuriating (and pretty darned colonial) ways. It definitely plays well in the national psyche.
I've been on the receiving end of their foreign policy in a few places around the world, not always happily I have to say. But as I've mellowed in my middle age I've come to have a little more respect for them. The more Anglophone the world became and the more the US came to dominate, the more the French wanted to protect their rich cultural identity. Other countries undoubtedly feel similarly.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
The dislike of female body hair is an odd one that has caught on over recent decades, and a dubious one in my view. The sexual aesthetic of pre-pubescence by removing hair carries disturbing baggage, in men too.
Or perhaps I am just a hairy chested throwback to the Seventies/Eighties.
I almost can't believe we're on this discussion but isn't the key point "clean, neat and orderly" ?
I don't particularly like messy, long and unkempt hair in men either and certainly not unclean.
There are choices of grooming "levels" but I'd have thought those are the basics.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
I think the awful economics will do for the Tories.
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
I agree with that. As always differentials in turnout will matter most. I do think that some Tory-to-LibDem switchers will be genuine rather than just tactical though.
Rich banker and hedgie who married very well, decides to quit the rat race at 35 and go into public service. How horrible.
It's the lying that is horrible.
He's been spending too much time with Boris Johnson, if he had been honest and also not engaged in some bullshit PR opportunities, he wouldn't be in this mess.
It turns out being a massive introvert is a great survival trait during a pandemic.
F1: vague ramble for Oz: I suspect McLaren will drift backwards, but be interesting to see (Saudi Arabia was much faster than Bahrain, Australia will be much slower). Should be good for Alfa Romeo. I'm expecting Ferrari to have the edge on Red Bull. Might look to back Sainz each way if I get a free bet or the odds improve from 7.
Surprised by the poor reliability in Saudi Arabia for multiple teams.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now.
How good is your track record on election predictions and your betting performances?
You are right that Starmer doesn't enthuse. I find him pretty dull. But that isn't always a preclusion to power.
John Major was really dull, with a much more boring voice than Starmer's: think of the ghost-grey Spitting Image parody and eating peas with Norma.
Theresa May wasn't particularly exciting. She was a pretty awful public orator.
With an economy tanking I don't think people will necessarily want to vote for a showman, especially one who has now been exposed as a serial bullshitter and hypocrite.
I think this will be an election when steady eddie wins. We want someone we can trust. A sure hand on the tiller to navigate us out of the storm.
Just finished the last season of Top Boy - what a cracker! @TOPPING
It's great isn't it roll on next season.
On a similar vein I for the first time watched Riz Ahmed's Oscar short last night. A very powerful 12 minutes - it's on YouTube. His co-creator, Aneil Karia directed some Top Boy episodes and has worked with Kano previously.
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
The dislike of female body hair is an odd one that has caught on over recent decades, and a dubious one in my view. The sexual aesthetic of pre-pubescence by removing hair carries disturbing baggage, in men too.
Or perhaps I am just a hairy chested throwback to the Seventies/Eighties.
I almost can't believe we're on this discussion but isn't the key point "clean, neat and orderly"
Nor can I. I took the trouble to read back the (presumably drunken) posts by a couple of men about body hair on women.
Sometimes this place really is godawful for female posters.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Rich banker and hedgie who married very well, decides to quit the rat race at 35 and go into public service. How horrible.
It's the lying that is horrible.
He's been spending too much time with Boris Johnson, if he had been honest and also not engaged in some bullshit PR opportunities, he wouldn't be in this mess.
And that is the big problem the Conservatives have.
Even if, by some miracle, they screw their courage to the sticking place sufficiently to ditch Big Dog, most (if not all) the available alternatives are just as bad politically and personally, just without the charm and chutzpah to carry it off.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Yes absolutely but plenty aren't.
My son's school is shut all week because covid has ravaged through it. People are too ill to teach. Kids have it and now so do stacks of their families.
Some Scots matter more than others. 300 shipyard workers on the Clyde are more important than 30000 islanders. Nicola Sturgeon was warned about the potential for fiasco and went ahead anyway. The ferry fiasco is a very Scottish story.
It really is astonishing. The Scottish government’s own procurement agency told them not to award a £97m contract (for 2 ferries) to Ferguson’s. They went and did it anyway. £240m and no ferries later it is considered impertinent to ask ‘Why?’
Rich banker and hedgie who married very well, decides to quit the rat race at 35 and go into public service. How horrible.
It's the lying that is horrible.
He's been spending too much time with Boris Johnson, if he had been honest and also not engaged in some bullshit PR opportunities, he wouldn't be in this mess.
And that is the big problem the Conservatives have.
Even if, by some miracle, they screw their courage to the sticking place sufficiently to ditch Big Dog, most (if not) all the available alternatives are just as bad politically and personally, just without the charm and chutzpah to carry it off.
In other words, you lie down with Big Dog, you get Big Fleas.
And that is the big problem the Conservatives have.
Even if, by some miracle, they screw their courage to the sticking place sufficiently to ditch Big Dog, most (if not) all the available alternatives are just as bad politically and personally, just without the charm and chutzpah to carry it off.
Having decided that a liar with no morals is their preferred choice as PM, BoZo is the "best" of the bunch for those criteria
Sir Kir Royale Starmer has weighed in on The Hollywood Slap
"In the UK, Keir Starmer said Smith’s actions at the Oscars fell on the “wrong side of the line”. The Labour leader said: “Of course there are circumstances and anybody who insults family members excites something quite emotional in all of us. But, on the other hand, to go up and hit someone in that way is wrong, I’m afraid … It was the Oscars, it’s got all the cameras there, millions of people watching.""
There is something inherently and intrinsically cringe-worthy about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is. eg these remarks are unexceptional. This side, that side, blah blah, centrist Papa is centrist
Yet something about the fact these remarks exist makes the soul shrivel. It could be an issue come the GE. Boris does not do this to the voter (tho he does many other bad and unseemly things, of course)
It's almost as if you've already decided to vote Tory at the next GE. Shocked I am.
I'm certainly not voting for Starmer. I've never voted Labour in my life and I'm not going to be persuaded by this lame and boring dork
I have in the past voted Green, Lib Dem, you name it. But never Labour. However, as you say, my vote is therefore unimportant. I'm not a potential switcher
My point is that I can't see Starmer enthusing many actual switchers. His aim seems to be to bore everyone into acceptance. Hmm. Boris is a tenacious, proven and wily campaigner, with a track record of victory. Starmer is not
2024 is probably going to be close, and if forced to bet at gunpoint with my own actual cash I'd have a narrow Tory maj as favourite, right now. Starmer just isn't all that
Hey, Leon, brother.
Posters couple of days ago, like Farooq ka ka ka, said I am you!
How would you like it if you were me! 😂
Are you just as excited as me about article how sexy hair can be on a sexy lady?
The dislike of female body hair is an odd one that has caught on over recent decades, and a dubious one in my view. The sexual aesthetic of pre-pubescence by removing hair carries disturbing baggage, in men too.
Or perhaps I am just a hairy chested throwback to the Seventies/Eighties.
Apart from those who remove body hair for religious reasons, is this not something that’s mostly been caused by the ‘adult’ publishing and movie industries from the late ’80s until quite recently?
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Yes absolutely but plenty aren't.
Great! It's just that everyone I know who has contracted it over the last few weeks - and we're into double digits - have all been ill for at least a few days.
So what's the point being made? That because a lucky percentage don't get ill that the majority who do get ill should come in and make other people ill?
This isn't about threatened lives any more, we're beyond that. But again, it's better that people ill with a virus stay away from an office or crowded space. Any virus. Why is Covid different?
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Yes absolutely but plenty aren't.
Great! It's just that everyone I know who has contracted it over the last few weeks - and we're into double digits - have all been ill for at least a few days.
So what's the point being made? That because a lucky percentage don't get ill that the majority who do get ill should come in and make other people ill?
This isn't about threatened lives any more, we're beyond that. But again, it's better that people ill with a virus stay away from an office or crowded space. Any virus. Why is Covid different?
It's not. If you are ill it is a courtesy to stay away from other people. But throughout time people have "struggled on" working while ill.
Don't ask don't tell refers to people who are asymptomatic.
When we talk about Russia potentially sending in reinforcements, it's worth bearing in mind that they're not going to be as well equipped as the units already degraded/destroyed by Ukraine. The 4th Tank Division has been fighting in the Sumy area, including Trostyanets.
"To put the 46 T-80Us into perspective, the entire 4th Tank Division had around 220 T-80s. So a loss of 46 tanks means a loss of around 20% of the total number of MBTs within the division."
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
I was just chatting to another dad as I dropped the little 'un off. He and his wife are double jabbed and boostered. They got Covid a couple of weeks back; she tests negative but is still laid up in bed, feeling very ill.
For some, Covid can still be quite nasty. That's not a reason to have restrictions; it is a reason not to forget about Covid.
BTW, I only know because the 7-8yo son told me how worried he was about mummy.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Yes absolutely but plenty aren't.
Great! It's just that everyone I know who has contracted it over the last few weeks - and we're into double digits - have all been ill for at least a few days.
So what's the point being made? That because a lucky percentage don't get ill that the majority who do get ill should come in and make other people ill?
This isn't about threatened lives any more, we're beyond that. But again, it's better that people ill with a virus stay away from an office or crowded space. Any virus. Why is Covid different?
It's not. If you are ill it is a courtesy to stay away from other people. But throughout time people have "struggled on" working while ill.
Don't ask don't tell refers to people who are asymptomatic.
Chances are that with testing having largely been binned if you are asymptomatic you won't have anything to tell as you likely don't know. Which is fair enough.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
Yes absolutely but plenty aren't.
Great! It's just that everyone I know who has contracted it over the last few weeks - and we're into double digits - have all been ill for at least a few days.
So what's the point being made? That because a lucky percentage don't get ill that the majority who do get ill should come in and make other people ill?
This isn't about threatened lives any more, we're beyond that. But again, it's better that people ill with a virus stay away from an office or crowded space. Any virus. Why is Covid different?
It's not. If you are ill it is a courtesy to stay away from other people. But throughout time people have "struggled on" working while ill.
Don't ask don't tell refers to people who are asymptomatic.
Chances are that with testing having largely been binned if you are asymptomatic you won't have anything to tell as you likely don't know. Which is fair enough.
Agree. Jason Leitch was again good on this on the radio yesterday.
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
I was just chatting to another dad as I dropped the little 'un off. He and his wife are double jabbed and boostered. They got Covid a couple of weeks back; she tests negative but is still laid up in bed, feeling very ill.
For some, Covid can still be quite nasty. That's not a reason to have restrictions; it is a reason not to forget about Covid.
BTW, I only know because the 7-8yo son told me how worried he was about mummy.
I'm not demanding a return of restrictions. Just a return in people thinking. I'm one of a small minority sat on this train wearing a mask. I don't wear it everywhere - it'll be off when I am in the (communal space) office. It's about reducing exposure where it's a free and easy to do so - like now
FGS can people *please* stop catching Covid. Had 2 interviews postponed and now our CFO will also be missing as he's just caught you know what.
I have 2 close friends down with it at the moment and know of at least 2 others. It is getting far less attention for obvious reasons now but we must surely be at some sort of peak at the moment in terms of infections, even amongst the vaccinated.
"We're all vaccinated, we're all going to get it, why don't people go to work as normal" I hear some whine. Because they're *ill*.
I was just chatting to another dad as I dropped the little 'un off. He and his wife are double jabbed and boostered. They got Covid a couple of weeks back; she tests negative but is still laid up in bed, feeling very ill.
For some, Covid can still be quite nasty. That's not a reason to have restrictions; it is a reason not to forget about Covid.
BTW, I only know because the 7-8yo son told me how worried he was about mummy.
I'm not demanding a return of restrictions. Just a return in people thinking. I'm one of a small minority sat on this train wearing a mask. I don't wear it everywhere - it'll be off when I am in the (communal space) office. It's about reducing exposure where it's a free and easy to do so - like now
Some Scots matter more than others. 300 shipyard workers on the Clyde are more important than 30000 islanders. Nicola Sturgeon was warned about the potential for fiasco and went ahead anyway. The ferry fiasco is a very Scottish story.
It really is astonishing. The Scottish government’s own procurement agency told them not to award a £97m contract (for 2 ferries) to Ferguson’s. They went and did it anyway. £240m and no ferries later it is considered impertinent to ask ‘Why?’
Because it's not about 300 on the Clyde, it's about the roughly million or so attached. Kind of like how Brexit wasn't about the hundreds of fishermen, but the issue was used to leverage a much larger group.
That said, my feeling is (and it is just a feeling) that the SNP are increasingly vulnerable outside their core. Education seems to be a real sore spot. The ferries disaster is undoubtedly a disaster. The trans issues are not progressing with the sensitivity and consultation that they deserve. Then throw in health and the stripping down of local authority and you have a recipe for a sea-change in politics.
There are, however, two issues. Firstly, nothing has crystallised the myriad problems into one big SNP problem. We see this happen. Gordon Brown, serious dour statesman for serious dour times. Didn't call an election, looked indecisive and weak, and suddenly everything he touched turned to shit. Boris Johnson, had his cake and he ate it, now he's a lying clown who's above the law and is currently less indulged by the electorate than he was before. This hasn't happened to the SNP yet. The problems are just problems, and the dots are yet to be joined between them. The SNP are aided, as Boris once was, by being able to be both Government and Opposition, of course.
The second problem is that the Westminster parties appear to have given up on Scotland. I'm not talking so much about their Scottish subsidiaries, but the actual parties. I suspect Labour and the LibDems don't feel too stimulated to try because there's a guaranteed cohort of anti-Tory MPs coming out of Scotland. The Tories aren't that fussed either because they can feed off anti-SNP feeling in England. It'd be harder to put Starmer in Strugeon's pocket if the SNP vote collapsed. Bereft of an outside force, a good alternative, the electorate in stasis remains in stasis - voting for the SNP.
If Westminster parties are willing, there is a future for them in Scotland. They need to point out that the SNP are good campaigners but less stellar in Government. They need to allow their local parties to be able to talk imaginatively about the Constitution and so take the fight to the SNP on their home turf. They need to become the parties of change. They need a message that is Scotland specific, that can speak to the concerns of Scotland (disclaimer: the concerns of Scotland are not so different from the concerns of the county at large but that's not how people feel). Promise to fund education, promise to give local authorities revenue to fund local services. Point out the SNP have done very little to actually improve the lives of Scottish people. Promise it will be better. Make sure the candidates are up to snuff, and if need be (as in some local areas), that they are local boys and girls.
The road is difficult, going through both Holyrood and Westminster but it's not as treacherous for Westminster Parties as the SNP would have them believe.
Comments
President says he was not calling for regime change but was expressing personal ‘moral outrage’ over Russia’s invasion
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/28/biden-vladimir-putin-power-russia-ukraine
But, I think many will stay at home. Labour will get ahead on seats due to tactical switching to the Lib Dems, Tory abstentions, and Greens returning to the fold.
There will be some level of switching from Tory to Labour amongst swing voters but a rather humble one.
They have nothing to lose, except their lives of course.
I thank my lucky stars I don't have to face such terrible dilemmas.
But there will be, I think, a much stronger 'let's kick out this lot' effect than in recent general elections.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/american-volunteer-foreign-fighters-ukraine-russia-war/627604/
Confirms the effectiveness of NLAWs etc.
The use of Javelin control units purely as night vision devices is something I'd not come across before.
Also, I think there are some positives (not many) of a Labour administration because they can draw the democratic sting of younger voters concerns and do reforms the Tories cannot, so providing more social stability in the long run.
Basically, there's a small c conservative case for a non-Conservative administration.
Given Russian description of all Mariupol's defenders as Nazis, they are unlikely to be treated well if captured.
I certainly don't expect a 1997 style wipeout because there's still a stark values divide in the electorate and Labour, once in office, will start implementing their own ideology - veganism, net zero dogma, open borders, lots more petty regulation in everyday life, and Wokeism to the max - and plenty of voters won't like it.
However, they might also ease the financial doom for young people, who also happen to like much of that stuff, and that'll sustain them in office for a while.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_149
Edit: Indeed that is correct. This time 5 years ago Marine LePen actually led Macron in several polls:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2017_French_presidential_election#26_January_to_16_March_2017
Suspicion of NATO, EU and the West's foreign policy in general does lead people into seeing both sides, even in a naked war of aggression like this. That seems to be quite common in African and Asian media too.
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1508562171759939591?s=20&t=lJztVRyb8sqbRix3-2wrqA
The attitude of the Russian elite to Ukraine.
The dislike of female body hair is an odd one that has caught on over recent decades, and a dubious one in my view. The sexual aesthetic of pre-pubescence by removing hair carries disturbing baggage, in men too.
Or perhaps I am just a hairy chested throwback to the Seventies/Eighties.
Strategically the continued failure of Europe to comprehensively sanction Russian hydrocarbons will be the light that Putin will still think he can walk into. Not many had odds on Boris surviving his criminality on such emotive an issue as lockdown breaches. And yet there he still is. Hate to say it but Putin will be thinking he just needs to see through the next 6 months and we’re back into winter. A Bastard that the West will have to do business with. If so, odds on that Manny is the first Western leader to be pictured with him again.
The elephant in the room is the indiscriminate use of chemical / radiological weapons, or the assassination of Zelensky. If Putin crosses those lines then there’s no way back even for those that take an entirely transactional view of foreign affairs.
As you know, the French have long held that independent attitude to foreign policy, going their own way in sometimes infuriating (and pretty darned colonial) ways. It definitely plays well in the national psyche.
I've been on the receiving end of their foreign policy in a few places around the world, not always happily I have to say. But as I've mellowed in my middle age I've come to have a little more respect for them. The more Anglophone the world became and the more the US came to dominate, the more the French wanted to protect their rich cultural identity. Other countries undoubtedly feel similarly.
I don't particularly like messy, long and unkempt hair in men either and certainly not unclean.
There are choices of grooming "levels" but I'd have thought those are the basics.
He's been spending too much time with Boris Johnson, if he had been honest and also not engaged in some bullshit PR opportunities, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Mr. Pioneers, my neighbours have it.
It turns out being a massive introvert is a great survival trait during a pandemic.
F1: vague ramble for Oz: I suspect McLaren will drift backwards, but be interesting to see (Saudi Arabia was much faster than Bahrain, Australia will be much slower). Should be good for Alfa Romeo. I'm expecting Ferrari to have the edge on Red Bull. Might look to back Sainz each way if I get a free bet or the odds improve from 7.
Surprised by the poor reliability in Saudi Arabia for multiple teams.
Zelensky's Ukraine is real. Putin's doesn't exist
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/26/opinions/zelensky-ukraine-putin-nightmare-glaser/index.html
You are right that Starmer doesn't enthuse. I find him pretty dull. But that isn't always a preclusion to power.
John Major was really dull, with a much more boring voice than Starmer's: think of the ghost-grey Spitting Image parody and eating peas with Norma.
Theresa May wasn't particularly exciting. She was a pretty awful public orator.
With an economy tanking I don't think people will necessarily want to vote for a showman, especially one who has now been exposed as a serial bullshitter and hypocrite.
I think this will be an election when steady eddie wins. We want someone we can trust. A sure hand on the tiller to navigate us out of the storm.
On a similar vein I for the first time watched Riz Ahmed's Oscar short last night. A very powerful 12 minutes - it's on YouTube. His co-creator, Aneil Karia directed some Top Boy episodes and has worked with Kano previously.
Sometimes this place really is godawful for female posters.
And with that thought I bid you all a decent day.
Even if, by some miracle, they screw their courage to the sticking place sufficiently to ditch Big Dog, most (if not all) the available alternatives are just as bad politically and personally, just without the charm and chutzpah to carry it off.
You know my views so I shan't repeat them.
It really is astonishing.
The Scottish government’s own procurement agency told them not to award a £97m contract (for 2 ferries) to Ferguson’s.
They went and did it anyway.
£240m and no ferries later it is considered impertinent to ask ‘Why?’
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1508707611864186882
[interior: a pub on Tyneside]
- I see one of the nominees for Best Actor behaved violently at the Oscars
- Javier Bardem?
- No, but the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has opened a formal review
https://twitter.com/callummay/status/1508575333674627081
So what's the point being made? That because a lucky percentage don't get ill that the majority who do get ill should come in and make other people ill?
This isn't about threatened lives any more, we're beyond that. But again, it's better that people ill with a virus stay away from an office or crowded space. Any virus. Why is Covid different?
Don't ask don't tell refers to people who are asymptomatic.
"To put the 46 T-80Us into perspective, the entire 4th Tank Division had around 220 T-80s. So a loss of 46 tanks means a loss of around 20% of the total number of MBTs within the division."
https://twitter.com/konrad_muzyka/status/1508562371391987721
For some, Covid can still be quite nasty. That's not a reason to have restrictions; it is a reason not to forget about Covid.
BTW, I only know because the 7-8yo son told me how worried he was about mummy.
That said, my feeling is (and it is just a feeling) that the SNP are increasingly vulnerable outside their core. Education seems to be a real sore spot. The ferries disaster is undoubtedly a disaster. The trans issues are not progressing with the sensitivity and consultation that they deserve. Then throw in health and the stripping down of local authority and you have a recipe for a sea-change in politics.
There are, however, two issues. Firstly, nothing has crystallised the myriad problems into one big SNP problem. We see this happen. Gordon Brown, serious dour statesman for serious dour times. Didn't call an election, looked indecisive and weak, and suddenly everything he touched turned to shit. Boris Johnson, had his cake and he ate it, now he's a lying clown who's above the law and is currently less indulged by the electorate than he was before. This hasn't happened to the SNP yet. The problems are just problems, and the dots are yet to be joined between them. The SNP are aided, as Boris once was, by being able to be both Government and Opposition, of course.
The second problem is that the Westminster parties appear to have given up on Scotland. I'm not talking so much about their Scottish subsidiaries, but the actual parties. I suspect Labour and the LibDems don't feel too stimulated to try because there's a guaranteed cohort of anti-Tory MPs coming out of Scotland. The Tories aren't that fussed either because they can feed off anti-SNP feeling in England. It'd be harder to put Starmer in Strugeon's pocket if the SNP vote collapsed. Bereft of an outside force, a good alternative, the electorate in stasis remains in stasis - voting for the SNP.
If Westminster parties are willing, there is a future for them in Scotland. They need to point out that the SNP are good campaigners but less stellar in Government. They need to allow their local parties to be able to talk imaginatively about the Constitution and so take the fight to the SNP on their home turf. They need to become the parties of change. They need a message that is Scotland specific, that can speak to the concerns of Scotland (disclaimer: the concerns of Scotland are not so different from the concerns of the county at large but that's not how people feel). Promise to fund education, promise to give local authorities revenue to fund local services. Point out the SNP have done very little to actually improve the lives of Scottish people. Promise it will be better. Make sure the candidates are up to snuff, and if need be (as in some local areas), that they are local boys and girls.
The road is difficult, going through both Holyrood and Westminster but it's not as treacherous for Westminster Parties as the SNP would have them believe.