NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
Indeed. But Roe v Wade did not force women to have abortions against their will. Whereas the anti-abortionists will force women to have children against their will, even when it puts them at risk of death. And they will do nothing to help those women or their children after birth.
And since a lot of anti-abortionists dislike the idea of contraception or sensible sex education they seem to be less interested in making women independent and avoiding the need for abortion and more about controlling them and treating them as mere "uterus havers".
Indeed. We know how to reduce the number of abortions: good sex education, free and easy access to contraception. These may even reduce abortion more effectively than banning it. Banning abortion has certainly never come close to stopping abortion.
Yet Republicans have never been interested in actually reducing abortion or reducing foetal “death”. They’ve never been interested in improving maternal health or reducing child deaths. They are interested in controlling women and “culture wars”.
And there are at least three SC justices interested in making it possible for states to ban contraception.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.
Is there a book on when LibDems will next hit 20% in a poll?
I think Davey’s the best leader the LD’s have had in a long time, maybe since Kennedy’s issues started to get the better of him, but the detoxification of the LD’s is largely thanks to Johnson. Only he could make the Coalition look like some prelapsarian Eden of astonishing plentitude.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
Nothing wrong with your point, other than it is entirely alien to UK defence procurement.
They may well need to gamble. Doing nothing on the assumption nothing has changed is also a gamble.
Chucking someone untested with next to no experience into the one of the most difficult economic and geopolitical situations is a tad risky.
Depends how bad the person at the top is. Every GE we might elect a party led by someone with next to no experience and there might be very difficult situations going on.
Cometh the hour and all that.
The leader becoming pm at a general election has usually led a party for about five years. No one has become pm without experience in a great office of state or LotO for over a 100. Whilst the Tories might change that, it is undoubtedly a gamble.
LOTO is really analogous to running a great office of state? I dont buy it. Leading a party is political preparation, but need not speak to any governance skill - enough poor PMs have shown that. We just include that precisely so that we can make an argument about experienced figures which isnt really applicable.
LOTO is the hardest job in politics. Totally exposed, next to no support. Not sure why you can’t accept elevating someone with little experience is a gamble. Gambles can pay off, but there is undoubtedly risk.
Could Moudaunt command the respect and loyalty of ambitious people like Patel and Truss through difficult times? No one knows. It’s a gamble.
Who could respect either Patel or Truss even if we were in the sunny uplands. Two bigger no users you could not find.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
I think I would like Nadine Dorries. She comes across as human unlike most of the inhabitants of Westminster, possibly is loyal - not sure, says what she thinks, and has genuinely interesting ideas.
Not sensible ideas. and she shouldn't be near any position of responsibility, of course.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.
Is there a book on when LibDems will next hit 20% in a poll?
Yes, the focus on the perpetual leadership crisis in the Tories and lacklustre performance of Starmer in Labour has been rather a distraction from giving credit where credit is due.
Ed Davey is proving a very shrewd and capable leader. He speaks intelligently and with empathy when given a rare media opportunity, and has rebuilt the LD campaigning as well as detoxifying the LD brand with both Tory and Labour voters.
Targeting of seats is key, but there aren't many where LD and Labour are fighting each other. Cornwall might be an exception.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
Nothing wrong with your point, other than it is entirely alien to UK defence procurement.
Perhaps they're learning.
Hang on, next I'll be saying Johnson's a competent PM....
I’m sorry is the Tory answer to why they keep loosing to attack the public for not voting for them.
Have they literally turned into Momentum? What on Earth is going on in the Tory Party???
12 years in office atrophies the parts of the political brain that include self doubt.
But even despite that they could always be trusted to be good at politics. They seem to have lost even that now.
CoL and the economy, no let’s attack the Labour Party and the Lib Dems for beating us in two by elections. Do they honestly think this is what voters want to hear right now?
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
And if she was a Labour MP, you would be singing her praises.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
The Simpsons gag from 25 years ago about 'abortions for some, miniature American flags for others' remains remarkably relevant.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
That requires adequate provision of contraception, access to sex education, support services, child benefit, properly funded education systems and well resourced fostering and adoption routes. The US is such a patchy clusterfuck that most states now gleefully canning abortion can maybe scrounge up two of those, if they’re lucky.
Maybe. Is that a bit generalised about the USA? You make it sound like Afghanistan on a wet Wednesday following an earthquake when it is a leading rich nation with a great democratic tradition. Is it really the case that women and girls in Wyoming or Montana find themselves so oppressed?
And crucially, they all have a vote.
If you have to travel 100 miles to get prescribed birth control or 1000 miles to get an abortion, then yes they are being oppressed.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
I hear the Russians are continuously rotating their army to keep it fresh
I’m sorry is the Tory answer to why they keep loosing to attack the public for not voting for them.
Have they literally turned into Momentum? What on Earth is going on in the Tory Party???
12 years in office atrophies the parts of the political brain that include self doubt.
But even despite that they could always be trusted to be good at politics. They seem to have lost even that now.
CoL and the economy, no let’s attack the Labour Party and the Lib Dems for beating us in two by elections. Do they honestly think this is what voters want to hear right now?
I suspect they do honestly think that. Governments also lose their ability to distinguish between what they want from what the public want - how could they not be the same after all?
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.
It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.
But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
Both are a waste of the fundamental forces of the universe in their immediate proximity but Dories has, at least, done some work that is of benefit to the average person in her life. I can’t stand her Mills and Boonery but my Nan likes them and anything harmless that brings some joy into a 93 year old’s life is fine by me. JRM is of the parasitic middleman class who benefit no one but they and theirs.
The parasitic middleman class is millions of people mate in the city, in parts of law , in advertising etc
What the decision in Dobbs-v-Jackson Women's Health Organization shows very clearly is the dangers of those who think that courts and fundamental documents have in a democracy. What we have here is a bunch of old men (and, sadly, not so old men) who lied and dissembled about their political and religious beliefs to get through their accession hearings who can overrule the clear majority of the public's views on contested issues (and anyone who thinks that this will stop at abortion hasn't read the decision or listened to Thomas J). Their basis for doing so is interpreting some holy writ, just as that was the basis for allowing people to carry concealed handguns in New York earlier in the week.
People really need to think about this in the context of the ECHR. The Judges appointed to that court don't get the same scrutiny as Supreme Court Justices but they have the same power to determine what democratically elected rulers can do. Just as Democrats were content to have a court determine what their rights were in 1973 most liberals seem fixed on the idea that this is a good thing. But times, and courts, can change. As a lawyer I see the limitations of courts daily, the narrowness of their view, the rules which lead them to logical conclusions that seem surprising. Those who think that there is something magical and inherently good about a document drafted in 1950 telling us what we can and cannot do today should reflect on the consequences of deciding rights by a document drawn up in 1787.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
What I mean is that it was a convenient slogan for Clinton to deflect the issue. The policies which might actually help in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies were pretty well absent under his administration and subsequent ones, As far as the current abortion debate is concerned, it’s an irrelevance.
I don’t think we disagree that the US ought to have better public healthcare and sex education - but those advocating for those things are the same ones fighting the abortion bans.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Rees Mogg seems determined to cause strikes throughout the public sector with his bullying and attitude over office working.
It may be a plan, of course, to see how many we can do without, before making mass redundancies.
But I don't think he's intelligent enough to have thought it through to that endpoint.
Both are a waste of the fundamental forces of the universe in their immediate proximity but Dories has, at least, done some work that is of benefit to the average person in her life. I can’t stand her Mills and Boonery but my Nan likes them and anything harmless that brings some joy into a 93 year old’s life is fine by me. JRM is of the parasitic middleman class who benefit no one but they and theirs.
The parasitic middleman class is millions of people mate in the city, in parts of law , in advertising etc
The parasitic element are a sub variant of the middleman class, not its entirety. It's about attitude.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
I hear the Russians are continuously rotating their army to keep it fresh
Tactical voting didn’t play big in Thursdays elections, certainly not in Wakefield definitely not in size. Of Libdem win.
Johnson and low low Tory Shareprice is what won them.
But it is clear to me, both the left and the right want to talk up tactical voting at same time. The Boris fan club want to whinge about how unfair and anti democratic it is - the opposition parties want everyone to hear about it and think about it.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
The non posh and the female always get judged more harshly in this country. Thus Dorries and Patel probably get more flak than is justified, and JRM less. Johnson too gets too much of a free pass, also helped by being a fellow hack.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
One lesson to learn from Ukraine is the need for standard equipment across armies. No country on its own can stock enough independent weapons systems. The mishmash of equipment going to Ukraine must be a maintenence nightmare.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
True. But a detail that shocked me particularly was that some states make it illegal to travel to another state to have an abortion, so it's not just the cost that's a problem, but actually the risk of being imprisoned when you get home. How can the most libertarian, states-rights and anti-federal Republican possibly think that's a good thing?
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a ****. What are you going to do about it?"
They should volunteer to drive for the rail replacement bus services and take a small detour.
Here is an interesting question. If a bus hit Boris Johnson, would the inordinate amount of bone in his head mean the bus would be a write off while he wondered what all the noise was?
That happens with kangaroos, a vehicle colliding with a kangaroo would be a write-off, while the kangaroo is most likely to just bounce off; but its the muscles that do it not the bones.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh not back to your Boris is a huge mass of muscles rather than a fat barsteward.
Boris Johnson interview with Mishal Husain turns arrogance and complacency into a new art form - an object lesson in utter self delusion @BBCr4today
Boris Johnson tells Mishal Husain: "If you're saying you want me to undergo some sort of psychological transformation, I think that our listeners would know that is not going to happen." https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540595151244038145
BoZo's message to Tory MPS, "I will always be a cunt. What are you going to do about it?"
Self improvement is for suckers. Good to see he's reflected on his shortcomings, which we all have, and decided, 'yeah, it's all good'.
In his defence, it got him to be PM of one of the greatest nations on earth. Why would he change, even if he could? The fact that he is totally unsuitedvto the role is not his fault.
It is as he's sought it out, but certainly it's more our fault, the public, and especially Tory MPs.
They were correct choosing him was needed to win, but that doesnt bind them forever.
A lot of people voted Boris because they thought it would be a bit of a laugh the jokes on them now
If this is true it won't survive the voters' scrutiny for long. I shall take leave to doubt it for now. It will only take a matter of months for the statisticians to demonstrate it. And at least we can be sure the Guardian and BBC will be all over it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1h Main focus of Thursday's results has obviously been on Boris and Starmer. But one of the biggest stories is the way Ed Davey has successfully completed the detoxification of the Lib Dem brand. That will have major political implications going forward.
Is there a book on when LibDems will next hit 20% in a poll?
Yes, the focus on the perpetual leadership crisis in the Tories and lacklustre performance of Starmer in Labour has been rather a distraction from giving credit where credit is due.
Ed Davey is proving a very shrewd and capable leader. He speaks intelligently and with empathy when given a rare media opportunity, and has rebuilt the LD campaigning as well as detoxifying the LD brand with both Tory and Labour voters.
Targeting of seats is key, but there aren't many where LD and Labour are fighting each other. Cornwall might be an exception.
The Tiverton result is remarkable, obscured by the expectation all along the Lib Dems would swing it. It isn't even a Blue Wall seat and so a natural Lib Dem target.
Wakefield was a workman like result for Labour. Starmer will be prime minister after the next election if he can maintain that level. There are doubts about the If however.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
The non posh and the female always get judged more harshly in this country. Thus Dorries and Patel probably get more flak than is justified, and JRM less. Johnson too gets too much of a free pass, also helped by being a fellow hack.
They are all well deserving of flak.
I note Mogg’s desperate search for Brexit benefits is still in vain, The signage thing was nothing to do with EU rules.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
True. But a detail that shocked me particularly was that some states make it illegal to travel to another state to have an abortion, so it's not just the cost that's a problem, but actually the risk of being imprisoned when you get home. How can the most libertarian, states-rights and anti-federal Republican possibly think that's a good thing?
This attempt at extraterratorial jurisdiction is really dangerous. It was when the slave states effectively extended slavery beyond their borders via Dred Scott, another iffy Scotus ruling, that they triggered the chain of escalating tension that led ultimately to the Civil War.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
One lesson to learn from Ukraine is the need for standard equipment across armies. No country on its own can stock enough independent weapons systems. The mishmash of equipment going to Ukraine must be a maintenence nightmare.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries is the the thickest of the thick Tories
Nah, there are several thicker ones, Bridgen for example.
But Parliament should be representative, and thickos are part of that diversity.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
And if she was a Labour MP, you would be singing her praises.
She appears to be incredibly unpleasant irrespective of which political party she represents.
Although she seems much softer as she gazes adoringly into Boris Johnson's hound dog eyes.
I’m sorry is the Tory answer to why they keep loosing to attack the public for not voting for them.
Have they literally turned into Momentum? What on Earth is going on in the Tory Party???
There are some uncomfortable parallels. Vote Leave and Momentum both contain some people who understand the electoral process well enough to win despite containing some people with pretty terrible views.
BoJo and Magic Grandpa Jez had a remarkable skill to be popular. This transcended their unsuitability for the role of PM, which got hidden in plain sight.
Both refused to be bound by reality or arithmetic, so could make extraordinary promises.
At least Labour had the decency to go mad in opposition.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries is the the thickest of the thick Tories
Nah, there are several thicker ones, Bridgen for example.
But Parliament should be representative, and thickos are part of that diversity.
That being so, they would seem to be substantially better represented in Parliament than those who aren't thick.
Tactical voting didn’t play big in Thursdays elections, certainly not in Wakefield definitely not in size. Of Libdem win.
Johnson and low low Tory Shareprice is what won them.
But it is clear to me, both the left and the right want to talk up tactical voting at same time. The Boris fan club want to whinge about how unfair and anti democratic it is - the opposition parties want everyone to hear about it and think about it.
The reason that there wasn't much scope for LD to Lab tactical voting in Wakefield is that the LD vote had already been squeezed there. In 2010 the LD vote there was a respectable 16.3% but gone Labour in 2015 and stayed there.
There comes a point where a tactical vote is no longer tactical, but just becomes part of the new parties core vote.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
I hear the Russians are continuously rotating their army to keep it fresh
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
And if she was a Labour MP, you would be singing her praises.
She appears to be incredibly unpleasant irrespective of which political party she represents.
Although she seems much softer as she gazes adoringly into Boris Johnson's hound dog eyes.
A real nasty Tory indeed and thicker than pig shit in the neck of a bottle to boot.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
One lesson to learn from Ukraine is the need for standard equipment across armies. No country on its own can stock enough independent weapons systems. The mishmash of equipment going to Ukraine must be a maintenence nightmare.
Hence NATO weapons standards.
Though that is more ammo. When it comes to maintaining vehicles and other systems, then variety comes into it.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries is the the thickest of the thick Tories
Nah, there are several thicker ones, Bridgen for example.
But Parliament should be representative, and thickos are part of that diversity.
That being so, they would seem to be substantially better represented in Parliament than those who aren't thick.
No, I genuinely disagree. People of less intelligence may need support on complex legislation from advisors, but are perfectly capable of having strong moral values and empathy with the people of Britain. Character and intelligence are separate domains, though I accept that we have some MPs deficient in both.
Abortion would be a free pill available at the 24/7 convenience store if men could get pregnant.
I remember a talk describing how slowly the oral contraceptive went through regulatory processes in various countries compared to how quickly viagra did, even though viagra is the more dangerous drug. It’s almost as if the middle-aged men on committees saw their right to an erection as being more important…
Did they talk about the difference between chronic use of hormone based drugs in otherwise healthy patients and the intermittent use of a calcium channel blocker (a class of cardiac medications with a well understood mechanism of action)?
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
One lesson to learn from Ukraine is the need for standard equipment across armies. No country on its own can stock enough independent weapons systems. The mishmash of equipment going to Ukraine must be a maintenence nightmare.
That's what NATO STANAGs are putatively for...
F-35 goes someway to address as the entire global fleet logistics are managed as one under the firm guiding hand of the US with the SALIS/ODIN system. Except Israel, who are the only end user given dispensation to handle their own shit.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
Even giving the LANCA program a name that is evocative of WW11 (Mosquito) couldn't save it despite the fact that shit normally gets tories as hard as a brick. It was probably doomed when they gave the development project to Spirit who have zero track record in UAS. This was done for 100% political reasons because Spirit are in the 6 counties.
In the early 2000s, a small Turkish engineering company called Baykar decided to get into military systems. At the time they had developed zero UAVs. They had no track record in anything like it.
Within a handful of years it had developed the Bayraktar Mini UAV, and within fifteen years had developed the Bayraktar TB2.
You may have heard of them.
So 'no track record' is an effing stupid thing to say in this context. Now, you might be correct if you say that Britain is uniquely incapable of replicating that success; that we are exceptionally poor. But the 'no track record in UAS' is a very poor argument.
It's a good job drones aren't going to be important in the future of defence.
from the article:
"The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.”"
You'lll note there is no exploration of what these smaller, cheaper and additive capabilities are. What are they?
Indeed. But my point still stands.
One of the many things the Ukraine conflict is showing us is that cheaper munitions in greater quantities are generally better in a large war than limited numbers of more expensive ones (something arguably the Second World War showed with Germany as well).
Also, a greater range of weapons with overlapping capabilities can be better than just one jack-of-all-trades platform.
We have had so many decades of fighting asymmetric wars, or preparing for a theoretical war, that our defence industry is in no shape for a sustained war with a near-peer competitor. Everything is far too slow.
I hear the Russians are continuously rotating their army to keep it fresh
That's one way of describing the current situation I suppose, of having to push hastily assembled units to the front line to replace heavy losses.
NEW: 50% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, including 41% who say they're strongly opposed. 37% support today's decision.
So will all these women stop voting for Republican fanatics who want to take the options they had away from their daughters? I genuinely think this is possible and that local democracy might get a boost from this in some of the red states.
There was one of the Trump anti-abortion campaigners being interviewed on the Today programme this morning and she made it very clear that their next steps would be to get anti-abortion laws passed in those states which do not have them and then at the Federal level.
That's how democracy works. It isn't only there to give group X what they want while a priori denying group Y. Which is what Roe v Wade did.
BTW the voice almost never heard in this ghastly squabble is that of a huge number of middling sorts who are not thick about the way the world goes, and therefore hate the idea of outlawing abortion, but believe there are vastly more abortions than there should be in a western world of liberated independent women and contraception.
"Safe, legal, rare". As Clinton said.
What does any of that have to do whether or not abortion should be illegal, though ? You’re basically saying that you’re above all this argument. Which is a view, I suppose.
Not quite. Your misreading is total. I am one of those who, as I indicated, 'hate the idea of outlawing abortion'. I don't think Clinton could be any clearer when he says 'Safe, legal, rare.'
Only the first two of those words had or has any meaning in policy terms as far as either Clinton or the US is concerned, which is why I’m unimpressed with it.
Not sure what you mean. To take a totally different example, you may want smoking tobacco to be legal as now, or indeed currently illegal drugs to be decriminalised.
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
What I mean is that it was a convenient slogan for Clinton to deflect the issue. The policies which might actually help in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies were pretty well absent under his administration and subsequent ones, As far as the current abortion debate is concerned, it’s an irrelevance.
I don’t think we disagree that the US ought to have better public healthcare and sex education - but those advocating for those things are the same ones fighting the abortion bans.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries does seem to attract these people, far more than most politicians.
I am curious as to why. She seems to live rent free in their heads.
She strikes me as often coming across as foolish, more than others, but I dont really understand why she is so viscerally hated.
I think there are three reasons.
The first is that she represents a sort of tea-room or pub bore that people reflexively dislike. You just know that if she was in your friends circle she’d spend all day banging on about some Daily Mail story from a week ago until someone brains her with the tea tray.
Secondly, she is a suck up. If she were in an office she’d be the boss’ informant. There’s loyalty and then there’s obsequiousness and the latter becomes objectionable after a while.
Finally, she really isn’t that bright. And while not being razor edge smart is not a crime by anyone’s handbook, it does become annoying when a cabinet minister is unable to correctly or adequately answer questions on her brief.
None of these things are unique to this cabinet, or politicians in general but she combines all of those things with an “I’d like to speak to the manager” attitude that grates like a microplane on a nipple. She shouldn’t be in the cabinet in the same way Chris Chope or Michael Fabricant shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the Cabinet Room. But she is so because she’s a suck up to Johnson, fits his tedious political style and is a useful flak target for a bad news day. She represents everything bad about this government’s style of leadership.
She’s also a woman, so some of it is probably sexism. Doesn’t matter if you’re Tory or Labour, hacks will still judge women more harshly (see the utter pish about Rayner in the Mail earlier).
She’s better than JRM at least.
Possibly the best critique on ND anyone has written.
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
And if she was a Labour MP, you would be singing her praises.
She appears to be incredibly unpleasant irrespective of which political party she represents.
Although she seems much softer as she gazes adoringly into Boris Johnson's hound dog eyes.
A real nasty Tory indeed and thicker than pig shit in the neck of a bottle to boot.
You were far too harsh in describing her as the stupidest Tory MP though. Unless you are incredibly fortunate and have actually forgotten the existence of Michael Fabricant.
People make mistakes. I do, I’m sure you have. At a quiz once the question setter asked ‘what was special about Apollo 2?’. Much bemusement all round. Turned out she’d seen Apollo 11 and read it as two. Innocent mistake. People do love to judge.
Dorries is the the thickest of the thick Tories
Nah, there are several thicker ones, Bridgen for example.
But Parliament should be representative, and thickos are part of that diversity.
That being so, they would seem to be substantially better represented in Parliament than those who aren't thick.
No, I genuinely disagree. People of less intelligence may need support on complex legislation from advisors, but are perfectly capable of having strong moral values and empathy with the people of Britain. Character and intelligence are separate domains, though I accept that we have some MPs deficient in both.
This might work if their advisers had any intelligence.
But this is a government whose leading adviser for many years was Dominic Cummings.
Just woken up to Boris on the Today programme. He makes Trump sound like an orator. Just a random collection of words. No sentences. No content.
Would love to see a transcript.
Graun feed has some fairly long quotes, but I imagine the more meaningful bits. For instance,
'Husain asks how it’s fair or right that the top civil servant in the country, Simon Case, asked about job opportunities for Carrie Johnson.
“I think that the worst thing I could possibly do is get into conversations about my family, my private life.
“It’s also about a choice, which is, do we focus on personalities, do we focus on Johnson leadership, or do we focus on the things that we are doing for the country, and BBC, I humbly submit to you that this is the time, where I think lots and lots of people, fascinated as they may be by the personal questions you raise, actually they want us as a government and want me to focus on our agenda and get it done,” Johnson says.'
The standard 'I dont like your question' dodge.
I agree with Johnson actually, for once.
The very worst thing he could do is get into conversations about his family life. If he does, given the state of it and the things he's done to advance his sex life he's totally buggered.
Carrie wasn't his family at the time he was trying to get her a sinecure, she was his mistress.
What is a mistress but an opportunity to expand one's sense of family?
Nah, speaking from experience, you need mistresses, not a mistress, to expand one's sense of family.
Comments
I didn't realise till last week end that she writes books but there again so does Leon.
Not sensible ideas. and she shouldn't be near any position of responsibility, of course.
Have they literally turned into Momentum? What on Earth is going on in the Tory Party???
Nothing much can render such things safe (I suppose) but social policy, including some legislative ones, can and does aim towards making smoking much rarer than it was, and has a measure of success.
In the case of abortion I suppose most centrist people want it to be lawful but don't want it to be common. Social policies aimed at supporting parenthood and policies embracing the use of contraception with a view to making it rarer as a policy aim seem to be to be a position which should command support from non-extremes.
The abortion debate between extremes misses out a lot of what non extremists think.
Ed Davey is proving a very shrewd and capable leader. He speaks intelligently and with empathy when given a rare media opportunity, and has rebuilt the LD campaigning as well as detoxifying the LD brand with both Tory and Labour voters.
Targeting of seats is key, but there aren't many where LD and Labour are fighting each other. Cornwall might be an exception.
Hang on, next I'll be saying Johnson's a competent PM....
CoL and the economy, no let’s attack the Labour Party and the Lib Dems for beating us in two by elections. Do they honestly think this is what voters want to hear right now?
There are worse things!
The policies which might actually help in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies were pretty well absent under his administration and subsequent ones,
As far as the current abortion debate is concerned, it’s an irrelevance.
I don’t think we disagree that the US ought to have better public healthcare and sex education - but those advocating for those things are the same ones fighting the abortion bans.
Tactical voting didn’t play big in Thursdays elections, certainly not in Wakefield definitely not in size. Of Libdem win.
Johnson and low low Tory Shareprice is what won them.
But it is clear to me, both the left and the right want to talk up tactical voting at same time. The Boris fan club want to whinge about how unfair and anti democratic it is - the opposition parties want everyone to hear about it and think about it.
Wakefield was a workman like result for Labour. Starmer will be prime minister after the next election if he can maintain that level. There are doubts about the If however.
I note Mogg’s desperate search for Brexit benefits is still in vain, The signage thing was nothing to do with EU rules.
https://twitter.com/Jim_Cornelius/status/1540269891076456448
Here's Directive 2004/54/EC on this matter.
It' says 25m or less. 25 yards is 22.86 metres.
There's nothing stopping the signage from being at intervals of 25 yards.
But Parliament should be representative, and thickos are part of that diversity.
Although she seems much softer as she gazes adoringly into Boris Johnson's hound dog eyes.
BoJo and Magic Grandpa Jez had a remarkable skill to be popular. This transcended their unsuitability for the role of PM, which got hidden in plain sight.
Both refused to be bound by reality or arithmetic, so could make extraordinary promises.
At least Labour had the decency to go mad in opposition.
There comes a point where a tactical vote is no longer tactical, but just becomes part of the new parties core vote.
Or did they make a cheap point about sexism?
F-35 goes someway to address as the entire global fleet logistics are managed as one under the firm guiding hand of the US with the SALIS/ODIN system. Except Israel, who are the only end user given dispensation to handle their own shit.
Within a handful of years it had developed the Bayraktar Mini UAV, and within fifteen years had developed the Bayraktar TB2.
You may have heard of them.
So 'no track record' is an effing stupid thing to say in this context. Now, you might be correct if you say that Britain is uniquely incapable of replicating that success; that we are exceptionally poor. But the 'no track record in UAS' is a very poor argument.
But this is a government whose leading adviser for many years was Dominic Cummings.
speaking from experience, you need mistresses, not a mistress, to expand one's sense of family.