This is the sort of self-delusion Russia is suffering from:
“Everything that we’ve seen during our visit to Vostochny, all successes in space exploration achieved in recent years prove that our country retains its leadership in space industry, is one of the leaders in this area,” President Vladimir Putin said.
They were a leader in the space industry, decades ago. Since then, they have relied on old rocket designs that were reliable. They have very little that is *new*. Their commercial launches came because they were cheap and reliable - even Arianespace used a Soyuz for some launches.
But their offerings are being left behind. Not just with SpaceX in the US, but companies like RocketLab and others. And other states who might once have booked rides have their own space programs.
The real killer for their program is the invasion. Few commercial companies will continue to go with a Russian launcher after the problems OneWeb and others have been caused.
I fully expect Russia's 'leadership' in space to vanish, and for them to be left with one or two military launches of their own each year. So much for 'leadership'.
The Russian international space program is dead. Apart from NASA swapping seats no one is going to fly astronauts with the Russians. SpaceX is cheaper and better, now.
For the unmanned stuff - no-one is going to fly Russian rockets anymore. The question is how ESA pivots. The block buy from Bezos has given some life to Ariane 6 - is that enough to kill off the planned move of the "cheap" launches away from the Russians (contracted through ESA) to a reusable European rocket?
An interesting point within this was that OneWeb got SpaceX rides very rapidly - negotiations took 72 hours, according to OneWeb.
SpaceX and OneWeb was a win-win.
The Americans got the cash for the launches, as well as a good defence against accusations of monopoly for Starlink. The Brits got their satellites launched cheaply and quickly, and managed to get away from having to rely on the Russians.
The big remaining issue is the ISS, and the hope that Russia doesn’t bring the project to an early end. It’s been one of the best things humans have ever done, certainly one of the most expensive, and has survived more than three decades of political trouble up to now.
Someone needs to pull their finger out and build a competitor to SpaceX.
Ariane 6 may have won some orders from Bezos, but it is very much the best 1990s rocket.
ISS is nearly past it's sell buy date. Thermal cycling twice each orbit and all that.
The future is NASA as anchor tenant for a mixed public/private station - see Axiom and their plans.
Incidentally, I listened to a podcast recently with an old-time Arianespace manager. In real terms, the Ariane 4 was 40% cheaper to launch at its final launch than it was at its first. Things like piggybacking aluminium orders onto the back of aerospace contracts to get bulk discounts. ISTR he also said roughly the same was true for Ariane 5.
The big problem is that Ariane has a requirement to be expensive.
The French insist on solid boosters to support the solid rocket industry, and so on...
The design of Ariane 6 was about making all the owners of the pieces of the space industrial complex in Europe happy, rather than reducing costs.
As Stéphane Israël commented - if he made his rockets reusable, what would all the engineers do for the rest of the year?
The biggest achievement of SpaceX is to show what can be done when the end result is the achievement, rather than the allocation of spending.
When the project was run by government, whether in the US or Europe, all the people with the money - the politicians - cared about, was that the project supported jobs local to themselves. This being irrespective of whether the actual mission ever got flown, in fact there were bonus points for running late and over budget, as the politicians could support the local jobs for longer and argue about sunk costs.
Just like defence spending...
When I was young and even more stupid, I actually lobbied an MP about an item of defence spending. It was a case where the sane option was to buy an existing item on the market, rather than spend a zillion on re-inventing the wheel.
The MP explained, in kindly tones, that if the international option was taken he would work to have the capability removed from the UK armed forces, since the work going to his constituency was the important bit.
The program in question later failed and the international option was eventually taken.
Rwanda: the thing about the third world is it's third world. The correct response to the thought of being a penniless friendless non-white prisoner there is not frustration with the inconvenience and delay, it's stark terror.
I am sure there will be some flannel about welfare being observed and monitored. It will be bollocks.
The BBC is curiously misleading in its extensive coverage, including headlines like "UK to give migrants one way ticket to Rwanda".... as if it is a future fact.
It isn't. It's just about policy and presentation; it is not possible to implement, has not been legislated, drafting its laws without direct or indirect discrimination will be impossible, the courts will block it, and it will be impossible to do it without it backfiring.
Hasn't Denmark already passed a law to do this and signed an MOU with Rwanda last year?
We are pretty much at the stage where Johnson defecates on the dispatch box during PMQs and it dawns on people that there is nothing they can do about it. Hoyle says something really quite stern, Blackford calls for a resignation, Johnson promises to ask Lord Geidt to investigate and report, Shapps goes on r4 to ask why people are asking Westminster bubble questions about a single bowel movement when Ukraine, are his critics seriously saying they have never taken a dump themselves, and HYUFD says that only crypto communists will change their vote as a result, and Big_G says he will abide by the verdict of the voters in 2024
Good to see Max and Bartholomew Roberts supporting the Rwanda policy. Even Big G NorthWales would appear to support it and yet the attacks on poor HYUFD continue.
I want to see the detail of the scheme before passing judgement
Then you might ask yourself why the plan was released to the media and not to Parliament.
I suspect the wait for actual policy details, as opposed to Danish style smoke, will be rather a long one.
This is the sort of self-delusion Russia is suffering from:
“Everything that we’ve seen during our visit to Vostochny, all successes in space exploration achieved in recent years prove that our country retains its leadership in space industry, is one of the leaders in this area,” President Vladimir Putin said.
They were a leader in the space industry, decades ago. Since then, they have relied on old rocket designs that were reliable. They have very little that is *new*. Their commercial launches came because they were cheap and reliable - even Arianespace used a Soyuz for some launches.
But their offerings are being left behind. Not just with SpaceX in the US, but companies like RocketLab and others. And other states who might once have booked rides have their own space programs.
The real killer for their program is the invasion. Few commercial companies will continue to go with a Russian launcher after the problems OneWeb and others have been caused.
I fully expect Russia's 'leadership' in space to vanish, and for them to be left with one or two military launches of their own each year. So much for 'leadership'.
The Russian international space program is dead. Apart from NASA swapping seats no one is going to fly astronauts with the Russians. SpaceX is cheaper and better, now.
For the unmanned stuff - no-one is going to fly Russian rockets anymore. The question is how ESA pivots. The block buy from Bezos has given some life to Ariane 6 - is that enough to kill off the planned move of the "cheap" launches away from the Russians (contracted through ESA) to a reusable European rocket?
An interesting point within this was that OneWeb got SpaceX rides very rapidly - negotiations took 72 hours, according to OneWeb.
SpaceX and OneWeb was a win-win.
The Americans got the cash for the launches, as well as a good defence against accusations of monopoly for Starlink. The Brits got their satellites launched cheaply and quickly, and managed to get away from having to rely on the Russians.
The big remaining issue is the ISS, and the hope that Russia doesn’t bring the project to an early end. It’s been one of the best things humans have ever done, certainly one of the most expensive, and has survived more than three decades of political trouble up to now.
Someone needs to pull their finger out and build a competitor to SpaceX.
Ariane 6 may have won some orders from Bezos, but it is very much the best 1990s rocket.
ISS is nearly past it's sell buy date. Thermal cycling twice each orbit and all that.
The future is NASA as anchor tenant for a mixed public/private station - see Axiom and their plans.
Incidentally, I listened to a podcast recently with an old-time Arianespace manager. In real terms, the Ariane 4 was 40% cheaper to launch at its final launch than it was at its first. Things like piggybacking aluminium orders onto the back of aerospace contracts to get bulk discounts. ISTR he also said roughly the same was true for Ariane 5.
The big problem is that Ariane has a requirement to be expensive.
The French insist on solid boosters to support the solid rocket industry, and so on...
The design of Ariane 6 was about making all the owners of the pieces of the space industrial complex in Europe happy, rather than reducing costs.
As Stéphane Israël commented - if he made his rockets reusable, what would all the engineers do for the rest of the year?
I think historically it's been a little more complex than that. A couple of decades ago (Ariane 5 dev period?) Arianespace did a study into reusability. They judged it not cost-effective as there was not enough demand for launches.
It should be noted that (most/many?) of SpaceX launches are 'internal' ones for Starlink.
Incidentally, von Braun also did a study into reusing Saturn V via a winged-flyback iC stage. From memory, they would need over 100 launches to make it pay. Leaving that to one side, imagine what we could have done with over 100 Saturn V launches...
Then you get back to the infamous spreadsheet from Tory "Jeff, where's my engines" Bruno...
People have been arguing that reusability doesn't make sense for *their* rocket for quite a while.
In the case of the Ariane study, IIRC, they assumed a massive increase in cost for a re-usable system. And a huge cost multiplier for the second stage.
Both of which SpaceX proved to be wrong - reusability doesn't need to cost orders of magnitude more and second stages don't "naturally" cost orders of magnitude more than first stages....
The problem with with winged flyback Saturn V first stage was that nothing on it had been made to be re-usable and the pilots would have been flying a multi-sonic aircraft larger (by orders of magnitude) than anything else ever built.
I reckon there is maybe 30% of the voters who think Boris is being hung out to try for nothing much - let him get on with the job. There's a few % more who think Starmer is a bit rubbish so stick with what they have.
But it is not enough to counter the lost millions saying "I won't vote for a liar." That reality will seep into the consciousness of Tory MPs. And into that of Boris too.
Boris wants to be remembered for winning an 80 seat majority. He does NOT want to be remembered as the PM who lost an 80 seat majority - to someone who is a bit rubbish. Those who think Boris will plough on regardless are reading the man all wrong.
He'll be gone next year.
I think the only recent PM who really didn't want the job (towards the later part, at least) was Major, and he fought on till the end.
Think of Brown - it was utterly clear that the job made him miserable. In a perfectly rational world, he would have arranged a leadership election in the Labour Party, anointed his successor and walked out of the door to a happier life. Instead he hung on and on.
Politicians are utterly driven to hang on until the bitter end. By the time they get to the top, they've fought endless elections/votes - selection for councils, councils, selections for MP, elections as MP etc etc.
But Brown had to stay on to, er, save the world. He was trapped by circumstances.
What has Boris got left to achieve? Levelling up? He can make a start but that is a thirty year project.
"PM" is already on his CV. Continuing as PM doesn't add anything. It also detracts from opportunities to make some serious money.
No, he'll be gone next year.
No postwar PM has really gone voluntarily. Either defeated at an election (Attlee, Douglas-Home, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Brown) resigned due to health concerns (Churchill, Macmillan, Wilson) or due to circumstances which made staying on untenable (Eden, Thatcher, Blair, May, Cameron). So, maybe, being a first in that respect might appeal to BJ?
Would have been interesting to see Cameron stay on, to implement Brexit. He could at least have gone to Brussels and said "I TOLD you I needed more. You own Brexit as much as I do. Now, work with me to sort this mess out - as painlessly for all sides as we can...."
Excellent article from Cyclefree, as always. But it overlooks the voter's dilemma in 2019. I am fairly sure that several million people voted Tory in 2019 believing that they had an unsatisfactory leader in the ways Cyclefree lists. I was one of them. And in the same circumstances I would do so again.
The other choice for government was a Labour party with a deranged and bipolar approach to the crisis of Brexit, and with a leader who, to this day, we have no idea where he would stand in relation to defending the west and who has subsequently been denounced by the current moderate Labour leadership. We would have entered the Ukraine crisis with a cabinet full of MPs supporting STW.
What, Cyclefree, should the loyal, centrist, moderate, liberal democratic voter have done between those choices for government?
And BTW I would vote Labour (for the first time in decades) if there were a GE now; as I shall on 5th May.
If the Rwanda announcement is intended to reignite the culture war and get the Tories back on safe lib-owning territory then, morality aside, I'm not sure it does the PR job it intends.
Bear in mind most people know very little about Rwanda (nowadays an economically fairly successful and stable country but with an authoritarian government) but what they do know is that a. it had a genocide, b. it's a long way away in an exotic country. So I'd have thought the public reaction is going to be:
- That sounds dangerous - That sounds expensive - That sounds like it's depending on another unreliable country
Not sure anyone, even the most gullible, is going to believe this will only cost £120 million.
I don't know very much about Rwanda. The first I'd heard of Paul Kagame was when he was a pointless answer on Pointless a few years ago. I have also seen a video on YouTube about how its economy was now one of the stronger ones in Africa. I don't know the exact details about how authoritarian the gvt is though.
Rwanda story is culture war distraction bollocks. I doubt if it will ever happen on any scale.
There's not been much reporting on how the local elections are actually going. This is an obviously biased but mildly interesting read on Labour's southern front:
Let he who is without sin cake, throw the first stone.
It is not the act of breaking the law, or the sin/cake, that is the real problem. It is the constant lying, gaslighting and refusal to live in a real world that breaks democracy.
Is this why the whips have so much power over the PCP in this case - any and all of them could be dropped in it for covid gathering FPNs if the whips wanted, so no-one can poke their head above the parapet on this specific issue.
(Apologies if this has been suggested before; I'm in catch-up mode this morning.)
This is the sort of self-delusion Russia is suffering from:
“Everything that we’ve seen during our visit to Vostochny, all successes in space exploration achieved in recent years prove that our country retains its leadership in space industry, is one of the leaders in this area,” President Vladimir Putin said.
They were a leader in the space industry, decades ago. Since then, they have relied on old rocket designs that were reliable. They have very little that is *new*. Their commercial launches came because they were cheap and reliable - even Arianespace used a Soyuz for some launches.
But their offerings are being left behind. Not just with SpaceX in the US, but companies like RocketLab and others. And other states who might once have booked rides have their own space programs.
The real killer for their program is the invasion. Few commercial companies will continue to go with a Russian launcher after the problems OneWeb and others have been caused.
I fully expect Russia's 'leadership' in space to vanish, and for them to be left with one or two military launches of their own each year. So much for 'leadership'.
The Russian international space program is dead. Apart from NASA swapping seats no one is going to fly astronauts with the Russians. SpaceX is cheaper and better, now.
For the unmanned stuff - no-one is going to fly Russian rockets anymore. The question is how ESA pivots. The block buy from Bezos has given some life to Ariane 6 - is that enough to kill off the planned move of the "cheap" launches away from the Russians (contracted through ESA) to a reusable European rocket?
An interesting point within this was that OneWeb got SpaceX rides very rapidly - negotiations took 72 hours, according to OneWeb.
SpaceX and OneWeb was a win-win.
The Americans got the cash for the launches, as well as a good defence against accusations of monopoly for Starlink. The Brits got their satellites launched cheaply and quickly, and managed to get away from having to rely on the Russians.
The big remaining issue is the ISS, and the hope that Russia doesn’t bring the project to an early end. It’s been one of the best things humans have ever done, certainly one of the most expensive, and has survived more than three decades of political trouble up to now.
Someone needs to pull their finger out and build a competitor to SpaceX.
Ariane 6 may have won some orders from Bezos, but it is very much the best 1990s rocket.
ISS is nearly past it's sell buy date. Thermal cycling twice each orbit and all that.
The future is NASA as anchor tenant for a mixed public/private station - see Axiom and their plans.
Incidentally, I listened to a podcast recently with an old-time Arianespace manager. In real terms, the Ariane 4 was 40% cheaper to launch at its final launch than it was at its first. Things like piggybacking aluminium orders onto the back of aerospace contracts to get bulk discounts. ISTR he also said roughly the same was true for Ariane 5.
The big problem is that Ariane has a requirement to be expensive.
The French insist on solid boosters to support the solid rocket industry, and so on...
The design of Ariane 6 was about making all the owners of the pieces of the space industrial complex in Europe happy, rather than reducing costs.
As Stéphane Israël commented - if he made his rockets reusable, what would all the engineers do for the rest of the year?
I think historically it's been a little more complex than that. A couple of decades ago (Ariane 5 dev period?) Arianespace did a study into reusability. They judged it not cost-effective as there was not enough demand for launches.
It should be noted that (most/many?) of SpaceX launches are 'internal' ones for Starlink.
Incidentally, von Braun also did a study into reusing Saturn V via a winged-flyback iC stage. From memory, they would need over 100 launches to make it pay. Leaving that to one side, imagine what we could have done with over 100 Saturn V launches...
Then you get back to the infamous spreadsheet from Tory "Jeff, where's my engines" Bruno...
People have been arguing that reusability doesn't make sense for *their* rocket for quite a while.
In the case of the Ariane study, IIRC, they assumed a massive increase in cost for a re-usable system. And a huge cost multiplier for the second stage.
Both of which SpaceX proved to be wrong - reusability doesn't need to cost orders of magnitude more and second stages don't "naturally" cost orders of magnitude more than first stages....
The problem with with winged flyback Saturn V first stage was that nothing on it had been made to be re-usable and the pilots would have been flying a multi-sonic aircraft larger (by orders of magnitude) than anything else ever built.
From my understanding (and I haven't seen the report, yet alone read it); the Ariane reusability report was mainly about development costs.
I don't intend to diss what SpaceX have done with the F9 and Dragon/2 capsules - it's been amazing. But they didn't do it with the certainty of a market for it - although they hoped there would be one. It was a 'build it and they will come!" situation.
This is the sort of self-delusion Russia is suffering from:
“Everything that we’ve seen during our visit to Vostochny, all successes in space exploration achieved in recent years prove that our country retains its leadership in space industry, is one of the leaders in this area,” President Vladimir Putin said.
They were a leader in the space industry, decades ago. Since then, they have relied on old rocket designs that were reliable. They have very little that is *new*. Their commercial launches came because they were cheap and reliable - even Arianespace used a Soyuz for some launches.
But their offerings are being left behind. Not just with SpaceX in the US, but companies like RocketLab and others. And other states who might once have booked rides have their own space programs.
The real killer for their program is the invasion. Few commercial companies will continue to go with a Russian launcher after the problems OneWeb and others have been caused.
I fully expect Russia's 'leadership' in space to vanish, and for them to be left with one or two military launches of their own each year. So much for 'leadership'.
The Russian international space program is dead. Apart from NASA swapping seats no one is going to fly astronauts with the Russians. SpaceX is cheaper and better, now.
For the unmanned stuff - no-one is going to fly Russian rockets anymore. The question is how ESA pivots. The block buy from Bezos has given some life to Ariane 6 - is that enough to kill off the planned move of the "cheap" launches away from the Russians (contracted through ESA) to a reusable European rocket?
An interesting point within this was that OneWeb got SpaceX rides very rapidly - negotiations took 72 hours, according to OneWeb.
SpaceX and OneWeb was a win-win.
The Americans got the cash for the launches, as well as a good defence against accusations of monopoly for Starlink. The Brits got their satellites launched cheaply and quickly, and managed to get away from having to rely on the Russians.
The big remaining issue is the ISS, and the hope that Russia doesn’t bring the project to an early end. It’s been one of the best things humans have ever done, certainly one of the most expensive, and has survived more than three decades of political trouble up to now.
Someone needs to pull their finger out and build a competitor to SpaceX.
Ariane 6 may have won some orders from Bezos, but it is very much the best 1990s rocket.
ISS is nearly past it's sell buy date. Thermal cycling twice each orbit and all that.
The future is NASA as anchor tenant for a mixed public/private station - see Axiom and their plans.
Incidentally, I listened to a podcast recently with an old-time Arianespace manager. In real terms, the Ariane 4 was 40% cheaper to launch at its final launch than it was at its first. Things like piggybacking aluminium orders onto the back of aerospace contracts to get bulk discounts. ISTR he also said roughly the same was true for Ariane 5.
The big problem is that Ariane has a requirement to be expensive.
The French insist on solid boosters to support the solid rocket industry, and so on...
The design of Ariane 6 was about making all the owners of the pieces of the space industrial complex in Europe happy, rather than reducing costs.
As Stéphane Israël commented - if he made his rockets reusable, what would all the engineers do for the rest of the year?
I think historically it's been a little more complex than that. A couple of decades ago (Ariane 5 dev period?) Arianespace did a study into reusability. They judged it not cost-effective as there was not enough demand for launches.
It should be noted that (most/many?) of SpaceX launches are 'internal' ones for Starlink.
Incidentally, von Braun also did a study into reusing Saturn V via a winged-flyback iC stage. From memory, they would need over 100 launches to make it pay. Leaving that to one side, imagine what we could have done with over 100 Saturn V launches...
Then you get back to the infamous spreadsheet from Tory "Jeff, where's my engines" Bruno...
People have been arguing that reusability doesn't make sense for *their* rocket for quite a while.
In the case of the Ariane study, IIRC, they assumed a massive increase in cost for a re-usable system. And a huge cost multiplier for the second stage.
Both of which SpaceX proved to be wrong - reusability doesn't need to cost orders of magnitude more and second stages don't "naturally" cost orders of magnitude more than first stages....
The problem with with winged flyback Saturn V first stage was that nothing on it had been made to be re-usable and the pilots would have been flying a multi-sonic aircraft larger (by orders of magnitude) than anything else ever built.
Couldn't have been done back then anyway, as they simply didn't have the computer processing necessary to control it all.
We are pretty much at the stage where Johnson defecates on the dispatch box during PMQs and it dawns on people that there is nothing they can do about it. Hoyle says something really quite stern, Blackford calls for a resignation, Johnson promises to ask Lord Geidt to investigate and report, Shapps goes on r4 to ask why people are asking Westminster bubble questions about a single bowel movement when Ukraine, are his critics seriously saying they have never taken a dump themselves, and HYUFD says that only crypto communists will change their vote as a result, and Big_G says he will abide by the verdict of the voters in 2024
You’ve forgotten ‘Corbyn would have done the same AND NOT EVEN WIPED HIS COMMIE ARSE!!’ from various suspects.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I reckon there is maybe 30% of the voters who think Boris is being hung out to try for nothing much - let him get on with the job. There's a few % more who think Starmer is a bit rubbish so stick with what they have.
But it is not enough to counter the lost millions saying "I won't vote for a liar." That reality will seep into the consciousness of Tory MPs. And into that of Boris too.
Boris wants to be remembered for winning an 80 seat majority. He does NOT want to be remembered as the PM who lost an 80 seat majority - to someone who is a bit rubbish. Those who think Boris will plough on regardless are reading the man all wrong.
He'll be gone next year.
I think the only recent PM who really didn't want the job (towards the later part, at least) was Major, and he fought on till the end.
Think of Brown - it was utterly clear that the job made him miserable. In a perfectly rational world, he would have arranged a leadership election in the Labour Party, anointed his successor and walked out of the door to a happier life. Instead he hung on and on.
Politicians are utterly driven to hang on until the bitter end. By the time they get to the top, they've fought endless elections/votes - selection for councils, councils, selections for MP, elections as MP etc etc.
But Brown had to stay on to, er, save the world. He was trapped by circumstances.
What has Boris got left to achieve? Levelling up? He can make a start but that is a thirty year project.
"PM" is already on his CV. Continuing as PM doesn't add anything. It also detracts from opportunities to make some serious money.
No, he'll be gone next year.
No postwar PM has really gone voluntarily. Either defeated at an election (Attlee, Douglas-Home, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Brown) resigned due to health concerns (Churchill, Macmillan, Wilson) or due to circumstances which made staying on untenable (Eden, Thatcher, Blair, May, Cameron). So, maybe, being a first in that respect might appeal to BJ?
Not sure the historical data is so useful, as being an ex-PM is now so lucrative. As always, Blair changed the rules of the game.
The political career of all PMs ends in tears. That is a given. Boris knows this as well as anyone.
So the choice for a PM is stark.
Either the electorate knife you at a General Election ... and you go on to make many millions.
Or your party knifes you before the General Election that you would have lost ... and you go on to make many millions.
It is just a case of whether the knifing is done in private or in public. The outcome for the PM is the same. They are super-rich but gone.
Rwanda and Glasgow have broadly the same amount of rainfall each year.
At least the section of our population that would like to carry out an ethnic genocide on another group of Glaswegians has been prevented from doing so thus far.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I've been wondering for a while whether Ukrainian Special Forces would/could do the same with the Crimea/Russia bridge. That would be stunning and helpful on several levels.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
In some ways I'm suppressed that the Ukrainians have not Blown up the 'Crimean Bridge' that links Crimea to the mainland Russia, and is no doubt being used to bring supplies to Crimea and up in to Ukraine. also a very High Profile Putin Project, that would be hard to hide from the Russian public.
I reckon there is maybe 30% of the voters who think Boris is being hung out to try for nothing much - let him get on with the job. There's a few % more who think Starmer is a bit rubbish so stick with what they have.
But it is not enough to counter the lost millions saying "I won't vote for a liar." That reality will seep into the consciousness of Tory MPs. And into that of Boris too.
Boris wants to be remembered for winning an 80 seat majority. He does NOT want to be remembered as the PM who lost an 80 seat majority - to someone who is a bit rubbish. Those who think Boris will plough on regardless are reading the man all wrong.
He'll be gone next year.
I think the only recent PM who really didn't want the job (towards the later part, at least) was Major, and he fought on till the end.
Think of Brown - it was utterly clear that the job made him miserable. In a perfectly rational world, he would have arranged a leadership election in the Labour Party, anointed his successor and walked out of the door to a happier life. Instead he hung on and on.
Politicians are utterly driven to hang on until the bitter end. By the time they get to the top, they've fought endless elections/votes - selection for councils, councils, selections for MP, elections as MP etc etc.
But Brown had to stay on to, er, save the world. He was trapped by circumstances.
What has Boris got left to achieve? Levelling up? He can make a start but that is a thirty year project.
"PM" is already on his CV. Continuing as PM doesn't add anything. It also detracts from opportunities to make some serious money.
No, he'll be gone next year.
No postwar PM has really gone voluntarily. Either defeated at an election (Attlee, Douglas-Home, Heath, Callaghan, Major, Brown) resigned due to health concerns (Churchill, Macmillan, Wilson) or due to circumstances which made staying on untenable (Eden, Thatcher, Blair, May, Cameron). So, maybe, being a first in that respect might appeal to BJ?
Would have been interesting to see Cameron stay on, to implement Brexit. He could at least have gone to Brussels and said "I TOLD you I needed more. You own Brexit as much as I do. Now, work with me to sort this mess out - as painlessly for all sides as we can...."
An interesting take that I hadn't thought of. Trouble is I'm not sure Cameron tried and just assumed he would win a referendum.
Rwanda and Glasgow have broadly the same amount of rainfall each year.
A guy from my cycling club went to Rwanda for a cycling holiday. He got 200m from his hotel before he got his skull fractured with a brick and his Pinarello nicked. Le Tour du Rwanda is a Cat 2.1 race now!
Let he who is without sin cake, throw the first stone.
It is not the act of breaking the law, or the sin/cake, that is the real problem. It is the constant lying, gaslighting and refusal to live in a real world that breaks democracy.
Is this why the whips have so much power over the PCP in this case - any and all of them could be dropped in it for covid gathering FPNs if the whips wanted, so no-one can poke their head above the parapet on this specific issue.
(Apologies if this has been suggested before; I'm in catch-up mode this morning.)
I doubt it. It would seem an empty threat to go after their own MPs to publicise yet more covid rules breaking, and any MP could deal with it by simply apologising, which was the obvious path the PM should have taken initially.
The real reasons that Tory MPs are not enforcing standards are mostly that they are afraid, not of the whips but the PM and his ability to wreck their career, and partly that they do not see their party electing better alternatives, or at least not a better alternative PM that they are politically aligned with.
How does that rating compare with Cameron in 2008 ?
That's an interesting question. Wikipedia only has approvals from 2010 for Cameron.
IPSOS has a Cameron net +ve wobbling around 5%, until their methodology change in June (to telephone rather than F2F) where it leaps up to 20%. Brown conversely switches from ~-20% to ~-50% in the same time frame.
UKPollingReport has "best PM" crossover for Cameron v. Brown in early 2008 - apart from a couple of outliers (e.g. a wildly discrepant NOP poll in late 2007), Brown leads until then. CON poll leads wobble wildly around the 10% mark.
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
Yes, that's a striking shift in one month. I can't think of anything in particular that happened to him in that month, and I wonder if it's a reflection of disaffection with Johnson and Sunak - "The Government is rubbish, why isn't Starmer doing more to get them out?" If so, it's not really fair since there isn't a lot that Starmer can do except put down a VONC which Johnson would win (arguably he should do it anyway, to get "vote of confidence" on the CVs of all Tory MPs).
After his early sacking from the Times, Boris has spent over 30 years moving internally between various roles in The Telegraph / Barclay stable and the Conservative party / government, indeed often both at the same time.
He also had a 27 year marriage, against all probability.
He may not be faithful to the role of PM or the electorate, but he does not have a particular record of just walking away. Don't mistake faithlessness for flightiness in your betting considerations.
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
You've made an awful lot of references to Kit Malthouse this morning.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
Andy Burnham but he will not be allowed a seat as he is too big a threat to SKS types.
Thanks. Not what I would have guessed, to be honest.
As someone mildly sympathetic to Labour (and pro-Starmer as compared to Johnson, on most* counts) I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. He's no Blair, for sure, but I don't see anyone who is. Burnham could be interesting, but he was uninspiring in the 2015 contest.
*I'm not a big fan of some of his lockdown calls later in the pandemic (post-vaccine in 2021, where I think the government generally got it close to right, after cocking up in late 2020 and - more understandably - in early 2020).
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
HMS Sheffield foundered under tow - the ship isn't safe until it's in dock.
It's the lying about it that gets me. If the Conservative parliamentary party doesn't realise how much damage this has done over the next few months. But then looking at Starmer, Davey, Rayner,Layla Moran or Lammy, having a liar as PM is perhaps not so bad.
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
Drinking beer != party. You can drink beer at work in many jobs, including politics. So that proves nothing.
But while I personally think breaking the law should be a resigning matter in its own right, if getting a FPN for breaking the law is a breach of the Ministerial Code, then how come none of Harriet Harman (repeatedly), Liam Byrne and Baroness Scotland who all got prosecuted or FPNs for breaking the law when they were Ministers in Blair and Brown's governments had to resign in disgrace?
Rwanda and Glasgow have broadly the same amount of rainfall each year.
A guy from my cycling club went to Rwanda for a cycling holiday. He got 200m from his hotel before he got his skull fractured with a brick and his Pinarello nicked. Le Tour du Rwanda is a Cat 2.1 race now!
Andy Burnham but he will not be allowed a seat as he is too big a threat to SKS types.
Thanks. Not what I would have guessed, to be honest.
As someone mildly sympathetic to Labour (and pro-Starmer as compared to Johnson, on most* counts) I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. He's no Blair, for sure, but I don't see anyone who is. Burnham could be interesting, but he was uninspiring in the 2015 contest.
*I'm not a big fan of some of his lockdown calls later in the pandemic (post-vaccine in 2021, where I think the government generally got it close to right, after cocking up in late 2020 and - more understandably - in early 2020).
Burnham is just the blank canvas onto which some people are projecting their vaguely idealised leadership hopes. His actual performances have been somewhat less impressive than SKS.
SKS can't really do anything much until a majority of the public (and the PCP, in the silent watches of the night) accept that the Tories are done. Then he *can* stick the knife in. We have yet to see whether he is then capable of doing this.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I've been wondering for a while whether Ukrainian Special Forces would/could do the same with the Crimea/Russia bridge. That would be stunning and helpful on several levels.
Agree, but it's quite a big bridge - actually with separate road and rail decks on total spacing of nearly 100m side to side in toto
Heaven knows how much explosive it would need to take it out; they might need to take a ship.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
HMS Sheffield foundered under tow - the ship isn't safe until it's in dock.
Although symbolic at this stage, if they could punt another missile in and finish the job, it'd be worth it.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
HMS Sheffield foundered under tow - the ship isn't safe until it's in dock.
If the Sandbox launchers cooked off, she may well be in this kind of state
depends how directional the explosions (if any) were.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
HMS Sheffield foundered under tow - the ship isn't safe until it's in dock.
I think the Sheffield had a bit of a longer distance to be towed and across open water, but still hoping something happens to Moskva.
I see that the Valneva 'deactivated' COVID vaccine has been approved for use in the UK. First approval anywhere by our .. world-beating .. approval process. (Better get it in before BJ does.)
Good news for vulnerable patients with shot immune systems? I wonder where it will be made.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
IIRC in Russian, ships are masculine?
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
A bit of pb heresy coming up......Sunak is back to being value to back as next PM or leader. 14 is too big a price.
Boris is not going, and does not sack anyone. By the time the next leader is decided the scandals discussed in April 22 may well be forgotten, and Sunak has the highest profile cabinet role. Oh, and the rest of them are all problematic as well, it is just his are more in the news this month.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
Hopefully there will be a satellite photo soon?
if it has Rolled-over it could still be salvageable, presumably, with enough time and money?
Yes, that's a striking shift in one month. I can't think of anything in particular that happened to him in that month, and I wonder if it's a reflection of disaffection with Johnson and Sunak - "The Government is rubbish, why isn't Starmer doing more to get them out?" If so, it's not really fair since there isn't a lot that Starmer can do except put down a VONC which Johnson would win (arguably he should do it anyway, to get "vote of confidence" on the CVs of all Tory MPs).
I have a feeling that some people are beginning to feel sorry for BJ and that this is the cause of this change.
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
You've made an awful lot of references to Kit Malthouse this morning.
That looks big, but there is nothing in frame to give an indication of how big. what do we think it is? ammunition explosion? Fuel?
Suggestion that it was Ukrainian shelling that hit the ammo dump. No confirmation I have seen yet. Satellite photo of 7th April below - vehicles could have moved on but Ukrainians probably wouldn't have shelled it if so. (If that is the ammo dump top left, Oryx is going to be VERY busy....)
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
IIRC in Russian, ships are masculine?
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
It's surprising how many sunken ships have been put back into use, though not so much in modern times and these ships have taken years just for Ru to refit/update.
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
You've made an awful lot of references to Kit Malthouse this morning.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
Hopefully there will be a satellite photo soon?
if it has Rolled-over it could still be salvageable, presumably, with enough time and money?
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
IIRC in Russian, ships are masculine?
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
Not calming any expertise in this field, but I would have thought even a capsized ship 'could' be repairable.
On a cost/benefit analysis it may not be worth it, especially as it was built in 1980, but if it helps Putin clam that it was not really sunk by the Ukrainians and thus limit the PR damage, the Russians may do it anyway.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
IIRC in Russian, ships are masculine?
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
It's surprising how many sunken ships have been put back into use, though not so much in modern times and these ships have taken years just for Ru to refit/update.
The only reason to do it would be to keep up the pretence that the damage was minor and presumably to relaunch it under the name Theseus
The Constitution Unit. Unit Director Meg Russell on @thetimes letters page:
"The prime minister & chancellor have broken the ministerial code on two counts [law breaking & misleading parliament]... Both are resigning matters, but the keeper of the code is the PM himself" https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1514365548435550210
Yes, back to the issue of the day. Once the dust settles the Crime Minister is going to have a stack of FPNs against him for attending parties he told parliament did not happen. The picture doing the round of the hacks of him waving a can of Estrella at the camera rather puts paid to "whoops I had no idea this was a party". (I assume they're keeping that for Sunday).
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
Drinking beer != party. You can drink beer at work in many jobs, including politics. So that proves nothing.
But while I personally think breaking the law should be a resigning matter in its own right, if getting a FPN for breaking the law is a breach of the Ministerial Code, then how come none of Harriet Harman (repeatedly), Liam Byrne and Baroness Scotland who all got prosecuted or FPNs for breaking the law when they were Ministers in Blair and Brown's governments had to resign in disgrace?
Lying to parliament is breaking the code. Bullying your officials is breaking the code. All three are guilty of those. I know that you disagree and were you a Tory MP you would have the opportunity to vote that way. Suspect that when it comes to the house - and it will - an awful lot of Tory MPs are going to have to do moral / linguistic gymnastics in a similar style to your own.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
HMS Sheffield foundered under tow - the ship isn't safe until it's in dock.
If the Sandbox launchers cooked off, she may well be in this kind of state
depends how directional the explosions (if any) were.
Any word on the fate of the head of the Black Sea Fleet, whose vessel this was? Presumably he was on board....
A bit of pb heresy coming up......Sunak is back to being value to back as next PM or leader. 14 is too big a price.
Boris is not going, and does not sack anyone. By the time the next leader is decided the scandals discussed in April 22 may well be forgotten, and Sunak has the highest profile cabinet role. Oh, and the rest of them are all problematic as well, it is just his are more in the news this month.
Sunak as the least guilty / least criminal / least shifty / least politically damaged member of the cabinet? Its certainly possible. Especially if Sir Gavin I Know Where The Bodies Are Buried Williamson comes back.
Russian drivers will be very nervous crossing bridges in Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4 🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
I've been wondering for a while whether Ukrainian Special Forces would/could do the same with the Crimea/Russia bridge. That would be stunning and helpful on several levels.
Agree, but it's quite a big bridge - actually with separate road and rail decks on total spacing of nearly 100m side to side in toto
Heaven knows how much explosive it would need to take it out; they might need to take a ship.
Hmmm - you're right. I suppose the USN could dock an Arleigh Burke in Romania, have all the crew go on shore-leave for a night and carelessly leave the keys in the ignition with weapons systems armed and ready to go. Ukrainian Forces then nick it and take it on a joy-ride for a bit on a GTA5 demolition spree.....
Andy Burnham but he will not be allowed a seat as he is too big a threat to SKS types.
Labour politics doesn't really work like that any more. The centre can get people onto a shortlist by ringing up the right people, but the membership is far from willing to take direction on selections. SKS has a majority of the current membership, so anti-SKS applicants will struggle, but Burnham isn't seen as anti-SKS, just as a notably regional candidate. I expect him to be a candidate for a Red Wall seat, and to win it.
Balls would be good addition to the team, but I'm not convinced he wants the hassle. I know lots of ex-MPs who think back on their time with some nostalgia (and some who really, really don't), but only a handful who actually want to have another go. I would, if I wasn't over 70, but I'm not typical. The interview with Dominic Grieve yesterday was optically striking - I remember him as the ultimate smooth professional, poised and smart in every context, but here he was with an open neck and a half-beard, commenting in a detached way as we might offer thoughts on the French political scene.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
IIRC in Russian, ships are masculine?
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
The two main nouns for ship (корабль and судно) are masculine and neuter. All adjectives, pronouns, etc. referring to specific ships (eg Москва) are usually masculine though there counter-examples; usually in older texts.
Russia claims the Moskva fire is out and it is being towed to port. No confirmatory evidence so far.
pity, she may be reparable, but probably not in this conflict and probably at high cost.
Just seen it clamed, that the Russians don't have a Dry Dock, big enough to hold the Moskva in the Black See, I don't know if this is correct, possibly, its also possible that if the damage was confined to upper decks she does not need a Dry Dock but still that might make it harder to repair her.
She's reported to have "rolled-over". Of course this could be an exaggeration (to say the least), but it would suggest a bit more than damage to the upper decks alone. I suppose we'll not know until Bond infiltrates the base and gets out his Iphone.
Hopefully there will be a satellite photo soon?
if it has Rolled-over it could still be salvageable, presumably, with enough time and money?
You wanna go salvage it in a war zone?
LOL - how much would you pay me?
but seriously if it is still floating even capsized and the Russians can bring it to a place where its protected from storms, then, long term I think they could bring it back to use. I don't know if they will or even if they will try, but I think a lot of things are possible if you are prepared to throw remorse's and time at it.
Boris announces the Navy is to take charge of channel crossing with effect from today
I'm pretty sure that this has been announced at least three times before.
And three times before the Admiralty have laughed and said "with what"?
Its OK. The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns, so why not attack the tossers in the navy who will singlehandedly be the reason why boats are still coming and not being stopped by the non-delivery of shipping them to Rwanda which is still off in the future.
Boris announces the Navy is to take charge of channel crossing with effect from today
I'm pretty sure that this has been announced at least three times before.
And three times before the Admiralty have laughed and said "with what"?
Its OK. The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns, so why not attack the tossers in the navy who will singlehandedly be the reason why boats are still coming and not being stopped by the non-delivery of shipping them to Rwanda which is still off in the future.
You have so much anger in you! I hope you have ways of de-stressing. Maybe thats what PB is for you?
Where did "The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns" come from?
Guido: BREAKING: ELON MUSK BIDS TO BUY TWITTER FOR $43 BILLION IN HOSTILE TAKEOVER
Checks date... no... not April Fool's...
That’s actually not surprising if true. There’s been a lot of discussion on the subject in the past couple of weeks.
it's not surprising given that the deal to put him on the board appears to have collapsed over a limit on his shareholding.
But take a step back for a moment, and it is still bonkers. One of the largest acquisitions ever, funded by some rich guy personally.
He doesn’t have that much in cash lying around though, so he’d need to dispose of a lot of Tesla stock to make the deal happen.
The favourite suggestion I’ve seen, is that can Musk please buy Twitter and turn it off, thus improving political discourse around the world.
He'll want to do the opposite though, isn't he? Trump (and various others currently banned) being let back on the platform is almost a racing certainty if this goes through; he's been pretty vocal about free speech being a priority.
The employees are going to have an absolute meltdown...
Boris announces the Navy is to take charge of channel crossing with effect from today
I'm pretty sure that this has been announced at least three times before.
And three times before the Admiralty have laughed and said "with what"?
There are plenty of P2000/Archer in the **** Fleet that could be used but the question is what exactly can the RN do (which is both safe and legal) that the Border Force cutters can't?
Any ideas, tories? Because I can't think of anything.
I like Elon, and whish him success in everything he does, but, I'm not sure that this is a good idea.
Unlike his other start-ups, he did not crat Twitter, or play a role in its growth, so its not as if he has a deep understanding of the technology that would allow him unlikely to 'add value'
It will however take up his time and energy distracting him form SpaceX, stare link, Tesla and his other companies. potentially to their determent, it will also require him to spend a lot of money reducing his stake in the other companies which has its own issues.
He will also now be even more seen though a political/cultural war lenses which is not really good.
I like Elon, and whish him success in everything he does, but, I'm not sure that this is a good idea.
Unlike his other start-ups, he did not crat Twitter, or play a role in its growth, so its not as if he has a deep understanding of the technology that would allow him unlikely to 'add value'
It will however take up his time and energy distracting him form SpaceX, stare link, Tesla and his other companies. potentially to their determent, it will also require him to spend a lot of money reducing his stake in the other companies which has its own issues.
He will also now be even more seen though a political/cultural war lenses which is not really good.
Depends what he does.
Things like an edit button and removing adds from the paid for version of Twitter aren't exactly world ending.
Boris announces the Navy is to take charge of channel crossing with effect from today
I'm pretty sure that this has been announced at least three times before.
And three times before the Admiralty have laughed and said "with what"?
Its OK. The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns, so why not attack the tossers in the navy who will singlehandedly be the reason why boats are still coming and not being stopped by the non-delivery of shipping them to Rwanda which is still off in the future.
You have so much anger in you! I hope you have ways of de-stressing. Maybe thats what PB is for you?
Where did "The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns" come from?
Not so much anger as world-weary cynicism. Have you not bothered reading the news over the last decade? Hunt vs Junior Doctors, lazy teachers refusing to go back to the classroom after Covid etc etc.
Comments
Mainly a relaxing day with friends and sun hats though
When I was young and even more stupid, I actually lobbied an MP about an item of defence spending. It was a case where the sane option was to buy an existing item on the market, rather than spend a zillion on re-inventing the wheel.
The MP explained, in kindly tones, that if the international option was taken he would work to have the capability removed from the UK armed forces, since the work going to his constituency was the important bit.
The program in question later failed and the international option was eventually taken.
I suspect the wait for actual policy details, as opposed to Danish style smoke, will be rather a long one.
People have been arguing that reusability doesn't make sense for *their* rocket for quite a while.
In the case of the Ariane study, IIRC, they assumed a massive increase in cost for a re-usable system. And a huge cost multiplier for the second stage.
Both of which SpaceX proved to be wrong - reusability doesn't need to cost orders of magnitude more and second stages don't "naturally" cost orders of magnitude more than first stages....
The problem with with winged flyback Saturn V first stage was that nothing on it had been made to be re-usable and the pilots would have been flying a multi-sonic aircraft larger (by orders of magnitude) than anything else ever built.
The other choice for government was a Labour party with a deranged and bipolar approach to the crisis of Brexit, and with a leader who, to this day, we have no idea where he would stand in relation to defending the west and who has subsequently been denounced by the current moderate Labour leadership. We would have entered the Ukraine crisis with a cabinet full of MPs supporting STW.
What, Cyclefree, should the loyal, centrist, moderate, liberal democratic voter have done between those choices for government?
And BTW I would vote Labour (for the first time in decades) if there were a GE now; as I shall on 5th May.
There's not been much reporting on how the local elections are actually going. This is an obviously biased but mildly interesting read on Labour's southern front:
https://labourlist.org/2022/04/hoping-it-will-spread-local-activists-on-labours-rapid-advance-in-worthing/
And happy birthday, Felix!
(Apologies if this has been suggested before; I'm in catch-up mode this morning.)
I don't intend to diss what SpaceX have done with the F9 and Dragon/2 capsules - it's been amazing. But they didn't do it with the certainty of a market for it - although they hoped there would be one. It was a 'build it and they will come!" situation.
Now sat at -26 from -14 a month ago. Among Lab supporters sits at +2 with 43% saying doing badly.
Wake up CHB and fellow SKS fans
📉 Is Starmer doing well or badly as leader?
✅ Well: 27% (-5)
❌ Badly: 53% (+7)
Net rating of -26.
Via
@YouGov
, 9-11 Apr (+/- since 10 Mar)
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1514515908928192512/photo/4
🇺🇦Group of the Special Operations Forces blew up a bridge with 🇷🇺vehicles which were heading for Izyum, Kharkiv Oblast, where the Russian troops have been trying to break through the Ukrainian defenses to capture the area of Slovyansk, Donetsk Obl.
The political career of all PMs ends in tears. That is a given. Boris knows this as well as anyone.
So the choice for a PM is stark.
Either the electorate knife you at a General Election ... and you go on to make many millions.
Or your party knifes you before the General Election that you would have lost ... and you go on to make many millions.
It is just a case of whether the knifing is done in private or in public. The outcome for the PM is the same. They are super-rich but gone.
https://twitter.com/notlikswehttam/status/1514169381906960386
No confirmatory evidence so far.
Where was the useless nonentity option?
The real reasons that Tory MPs are not enforcing standards are mostly that they are afraid, not of the whips but the PM and his ability to wreck their career, and partly that they do not see their party electing better alternatives, or at least not a better alternative PM that they are politically aligned with.
IPSOS has a Cameron net +ve wobbling around 5%, until their methodology change in June (to telephone rather than F2F) where it leaps up to 20%. Brown conversely switches from ~-20% to ~-50% in the same time frame.
UKPollingReport has "best PM" crossover for Cameron v. Brown in early 2008 - apart from a couple of outliers (e.g. a wildly discrepant NOP poll in late 2007), Brown leads until then. CON poll leads wobble wildly around the 10% mark.
So we will have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Home Secretary proven to have broken the ministerial code. Two liars and one bully. "Nothing to see here, move on, look, Rwanda!" only sticks if the code story is already dead.
It is not. More FPNs. More photos. The Gray report. And all the while incredulity and anger builds in their now former voters. I have little doubt that fawning lickspittles like David Duguid want to keep the crooks in office. But will they get the chance?
This feels like boiling frog syndrome. Each thing by itself isn't enough to kill the frog. But cumulatively the frog sits their and gets boiled alive.
Andy Burnham far too sanctimonious for his own good.
Welsh Secretary Simon Hart backs Boris Johnson even if he is fined again
"The principles are the same, whether it's going to be one fine or two"
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1514241578663096331
One fine or two... one law or two... who cares ?
What he really means is that the lack of principles is the same.
https://www.facebook.com/StratcomCentreUA/posts/307950541488934
EDIT: already covered I see
He also had a 27 year marriage, against all probability.
He may not be faithful to the role of PM or the electorate, but he does not have a particular record of just walking away. Don't mistake faithlessness for flightiness in your betting considerations.
As someone mildly sympathetic to Labour (and pro-Starmer as compared to Johnson, on most* counts) I don't think Starmer is doing too badly. He's no Blair, for sure, but I don't see anyone who is. Burnham could be interesting, but he was uninspiring in the 2015 contest.
*I'm not a big fan of some of his lockdown calls later in the pandemic (post-vaccine in 2021, where I think the government generally got it close to right, after cocking up in late 2020 and - more understandably - in early 2020).
But then looking at Starmer, Davey, Rayner,Layla Moran or Lammy, having a liar as PM is perhaps not so bad.
But while I personally think breaking the law should be a resigning matter in its own right, if getting a FPN for breaking the law is a breach of the Ministerial Code, then how come none of Harriet Harman (repeatedly), Liam Byrne and Baroness Scotland who all got prosecuted or FPNs for breaking the law when they were Ministers in Blair and Brown's governments had to resign in disgrace?
SKS can't really do anything much until a majority of the public (and the PCP, in the silent watches of the night) accept that the Tories are done. Then he *can* stick the knife in. We have yet to see whether he is then capable of doing this.
Heaven knows how much explosive it would need to take it out; they might need to take a ship.
depends how directional the explosions (if any) were.
Good news for vulnerable patients with shot immune systems? I wonder where it will be made.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61104594
If the Moskva has capsized rather than listing, then this is salvage of a wreck, not a repairable ship.
Boris is not going, and does not sack anyone. By the time the next leader is decided the scandals discussed in April 22 may well be forgotten, and Sunak has the highest profile cabinet role. Oh, and the rest of them are all problematic as well, it is just his are more in the news this month.
if it has Rolled-over it could still be salvageable, presumably, with enough time and money?
Checks date... no... not April Fool's...
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1514170513861529609/photo/1
On a cost/benefit analysis it may not be worth it, especially as it was built in 1980, but if it helps Putin clam that it was not really sunk by the Ukrainians and thus limit the PR damage, the Russians may do it anyway.
But take a step back for a moment, and it is still bonkers. One of the largest acquisitions ever, funded by some rich guy personally.
Does he have no taste?
Just dreaming. Would be good though.
It will be a Thatcher-lite Party in the style of Tony Blair.
It won't be a threat to anyone who’s important or wealthy in Britain
The affluent who were repelled by Corbyn are SKS' greatest fans.
So, I'd say SKS is an absolutely perfect fit for about 80 per cent of pb.com.
Balls would be good addition to the team, but I'm not convinced he wants the hassle. I know lots of ex-MPs who think back on their time with some nostalgia (and some who really, really don't), but only a handful who actually want to have another go. I would, if I wasn't over 70, but I'm not typical. The interview with Dominic Grieve yesterday was optically striking - I remember him as the ultimate smooth professional, poised and smart in every context, but here he was with an open neck and a half-beard, commenting in a detached way as we might offer thoughts on the French political scene.
The favourite suggestion I’ve seen, is that can Musk please buy Twitter and turn it off, thus improving political discourse around the world.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/14/elon-musk-offers-buy-twitter-43bn/
but seriously if it is still floating even capsized and the Russians can bring it to a place where its protected from storms, then, long term I think they could bring it back to use. I don't know if they will or even if they will try, but I think a lot of things are possible if you are prepared to throw remorse's and time at it.
Its OK. The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns, so why not attack the tossers in the navy who will singlehandedly be the reason why boats are still coming and not being stopped by the non-delivery of shipping them to Rwanda which is still off in the future.
Where did "The Tories have encouraged people to attack doctors, nurses, teachers for being wrong'uns" come from?
The employees are going to have an absolute meltdown...
Any ideas, tories? Because I can't think of anything.
Unlike his other start-ups, he did not crat Twitter, or play a role in its growth, so its not as if he has a deep understanding of the technology that would allow him unlikely to 'add value'
It will however take up his time and energy distracting him form SpaceX, stare link, Tesla and his other companies. potentially to their determent, it will also require him to spend a lot of money reducing his stake in the other companies which has its own issues.
He will also now be even more seen though a political/cultural war lenses which is not really good.
Things like an edit button and removing adds from the paid for version of Twitter aren't exactly world ending.