Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

It’s looking better for the Dems ahead of the Nov 8 Midterms – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageIt’s looking better for the Dems ahead of the Nov 8 Midterms – politicalbetting.com

We have hardly looked at the US mid-term elections on PB but these look set to probably tbe the biggest political betting gamble of 2920.

Read the full story here

«13456789

Comments

  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,793
    I was expecting "it's looking better for the" to go somewhere other than the Dems there.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Ukrainian Armed Forces are now on the outskirts of #Lysychansk in #Donbass.
    Also, it is reported that Ukraine is struggling with the sheer number of Russian POWs. Thousands upon thousands.”

    https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1568616740149690370?s=21&t=dR67aVG5CBRHK7WZSWDnCQ
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,793
    Also, good that our news broadcasters aren't totally fixated on something else here, isn't it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    November seems a long way away right now. Interesting to see if any further movement.
  • My dad got an email from his golf club yesterday saying that it was shut for the Queen's funeral on Monday 19th. This has only just been confirmed as the funeral date

    Was Marlborough Golf Club just lucky?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    The only golf course I used to play on had no people on site, you just deposited cash or a cheque in an envelop into a box and played your round, so it would probably be unaffected.
  • FossFoss Posts: 565
    Biggest gamble of 2920?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    Foss said:

    Biggest gamble of 2920?

    Trump promised a thousand year Reich.

    At least, it felt like it...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,731
    edited September 10
    Note to Dynamo, if you want to do monarchy snark, keep it brief and to the point.

    oh so they're just GIVING the throne to charles????? this is nepotism at its finest
    https://twitter.com/ErinChack/status/1567941729940295680

    The replies, addressing it seriously, are priceless.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Andrew Roth
    @Andrew__Roth
    Russian occupation administration in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region calling for a full evacuation. “Our army is doing all it can” but admits it can’t stop Ukraine. Stunning defeat in towns and villages where Russia told local collaborators it was there to stay.

    https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/status/1568624975220772864
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,731
    On topic, been saying so for weeks.
  • Third factor is Trump/Tucker GOPers being so into Putin surely?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
  • Simon_PeachSimon_Peach Posts: 281
    edited September 10
    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,783

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    He was wearing it on his tie earlier today.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    Sorry for the crappy picture but I believe this is his Cypher.


  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Prince & Princess of Wales & Duke & Duchess of Sussex viewing the flowers at Windsor.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,745


    Andrew Roth
    @Andrew__Roth
    Russian occupation administration in Ukraine’s Kharkiv region calling for a full evacuation. “Our army is doing all it can” but admits it can’t stop Ukraine. Stunning defeat in towns and villages where Russia told local collaborators it was there to stay.

    https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/status/1568624975220772864

    Russian state organs are being forced to concede the gravity of the situation.

    Residents of Izyum are being evacuated to Russia. According to Vladislav Sokolov, head of the military-civilian administration of the Izyumsky district, people "are received at the migration center, they are provided with psychological and humanitarian assistance"

    https://twitter.com/tass_agency/status/1568592651603300353

    Quite how many people will be evacuated and how many will be abducted remains to be seen. Hopefully they'll be in too much of a hurry running away to take a load of civilian captives with them.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    Late afternoon all :)

    Too late for the previous thread comme toujours but it illustrates the degree to which we have evolved culturally, socially and economically since 1952.

    To be fair, George VI died in early February and the notion of not much happening in the depths of winter for nine days wasn't one that was too hard to sell. It was a very different atmosphere as would be demonstrated by the Smog ten months later.

    Now, it's a different world. Take horse racing - so close to the late Queen's heart as we know. When George VI died all racing stopped from his death until after his funeral but it was mid February so it didn't matter much. Now, in September 2022, we have the Leger meeting and a host of other fixtures and racing is part of the hospitality and entertainment industries.

    I suspect Doncaster Racecourse would have been less than happy to see the Leger canned so it has been partially saved by a 24 hour delay but that in turn has illustrated the differences in how we view death and life from 70 years ago when more people were more often acquainted with death - only a few years since the War and with shorter life expectancy than now.

    We now try to combine the mourning process with the continuation of the living process so plenty of 2-minute silences (gestures perhaps?) and I suspect after the funeral life will quickly return to normal (or what passes for it).

    This is who we are now - we have lost the degrees of deference which identified and stratified British society a few decades ago. The working class no longer know their place as Mr Corbett suggested and the irony is that at a time when social mobility is as much a chimera for many as ever, there remains a strong audience for those preaching aspiration and the degree to which wealth equates to power remains unchallenged.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    edited September 10
    boulay said:

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    Sorry for the crappy picture but I believe this is his Cypher.


    Well spotted!

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11199729/King-Charles-III-wore-royal-cypher-time-proclamation.html
  • Nigelb said:

    On topic, been saying so for weeks.

    Let's hope so - Trump would be a disaster for the US and the rest of us
  • There may be another thing helping the Democrats -- a possible decrease in inflation in the US. The decrease in gas prices gets the most publicity: "For the twelfth consecutive week, the nation’s average gas price has fallen, declining 7.7 cents from a week ago to $3.75 per gallon today, according to GasBuddy data compiled from more than 11 million individual price reports covering over 150,000 stations nationwide. The national average is down 29.5 cents from a month ago but 57.6 cents higher than a year ago. The national average price of diesel has declined 2.0 cents in the last week and stands at $5.02 per gallon."
    source: https://www.gasbuddy.com/go/12-week-decline-in-gas-prices-surpasses-covid-drop

    But that isn't the only thing helping tame inflation here. The rise of the dollar makes imports cheaper. The supply chains seem to be slowly returning to normal. House prices are down in some cities. And, though I haven't seen any statistics on them, I think I have seen a small decline in food prices, here in the Seattle area.

    (At the end of this month, the Social Security administration will calculate an increase in payments, starting in January. Right now, I think that is likely to be closer to 8,5 percent than 10 percent.)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,731
    boulay said:

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    Sorry for the crappy picture but I believe this is his Cypher.


    Swarovski crystals on postboxes are just going to look silly.
    And the postage stamps….
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Piers Morgan won't like that
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,745

    boulay said:

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    Sorry for the crappy picture but I believe this is his Cypher.


    Well spotted!

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11199729/King-Charles-III-wore-royal-cypher-time-proclamation.html
    It's an heirloom. That's G VI R, not C III R.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,334
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    May want to give some thought to what works. Perhaps towed artillery isn't obsolete.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719
    Nigelb said:

    boulay said:

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    Sorry for the crappy picture but I believe this is his Cypher.


    Swarovski crystals on postboxes are just going to look silly.
    And the postage stamps….
    But will look magnificent on those state trumpeters’ outfits.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,731
    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.
  • On Topic - New Hampshire Primary this coming Tuesday is yet another opportunity for MAGA-minded Republican-Putinists to jump head-first down yet another rat-hole. Specifically by selecting MAGA-maniac nominees for US Senate and US House, in races where a normal (or less-abnoral) Republican would have a real shot of unseating Democratic incumbents.

    Also, with respect to SCOTUS overturning of Roe v Wade, note that Michigan state supreme court this week ordered the state canvassing board to do its job (that's practically verbatim) and certify proposed pro-choice amendment to state constitution on 2022 general election ballot. In the wake of failed Kansas abortion ban referendum, Democrats are eager to protect freedom of choice, especially via state constitutional amendments, particularly in states where they stand a good chance of being ratified by voters.

    AND where putting the issue on the general election ballot will, based on Kansas experience, draw MANY pro-choice voters to actually cast ballots in 2022 midterms, who otherwise might (or definitely would) skip the election. Of course pro-life voters would also be turned out, but calculation is that the equation would end up to the advantage of Democratic candidates, at least in places like the Wolverine State, also in other key battleground states AND in suburban swing congressional districts.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    As for the Ukraine, I'm where I was late yesterday evening.

    Even if the Russians are forced out of the Dombas, what then? There may be many with Russian familial and cultural links who, via Russian disinformation, may regard the idea of living in a Ukraine ruled democratically from Kyiv, as anathema and as in so many other conflicts, the final victims aren't soldiers but civilians forced or deciding voluntarily (it matters little) to migrate from their long-held homes.

    I fear a humanitarian catastrophe if pro-Russian residents feel they have no option but to leave. That's Putin's responsibility, unequivocally and undoubtedly but it doesn't alter the facts. Zelenskyy will have a region to manage which will need a lot of time, effort and money to rebuild and restore after months of destruction.

    The Crimea remains a problem too - for all the Russians may be forced from Kherson and Mariupol in time, are we suggesting the Ukrainians will advance into Crimea. It may be the Crimean people might want a say in their future and perhaps their preference is to rule themselves rather than be ruled by wither Kyiv or Moscow.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    Oh Harry, what was that?
  • Foxy said:

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Imagine the bitchfest.

    "She deliberately came in the same colour dress..."

    I have been admonished by Mrs P for making what were apparently inappropriate comments on their respective rear ends in tight skirts…
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    May want to give some thought to what works. Perhaps towed artillery isn't obsolete.
    There has been some fine towed artillery on display from His Majesty’s forces over the last 48 hours.

    Not much use in an actual war though, think of all the food required for the horses.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Yes, that is career-ending levels of rubbish
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Big issues of cultural appropriation, no doubt.....
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 427
    FPT:
    Foxy said:

    Driver said:

    BBC News push notification: funeral confirmed for Monday 19th.

    I have 3 clinical sessions booked that day. Bit of a sod for the patients cancelled, I suppose find out on Monday what is working. I would happily take a lieu day another time.
    Also the first day of term for a lot of universities I think?

  • Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    The Tory press will praise Kate for her choice, and criticise Meghan for her choice.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
  • Here's a discussion of the likely Social Security increase, with actual numbers: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-big-a-social-security-cola-can-retirees-expect-in-2023-11661615640

    (Correction of a mistake in the previous comment: The increase will be calculated using data through September, but the actual calculation will come later. So, "After" the end of this month, rather than "At".)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,315

    Totally off topic:

    George V and Elizabeth II both went for a Roman type; Edward VIII, Lombardic; Victoria, Edward VII and George VI all had different Script designs.

    I wonder what the new Royal Cypher will look like and which crown he shall use




    https://twitter.com/2D0XPS/status/1568555986096472065

    The crown is also different because the arches were depressed for Elizabeth to make the crown a bit less tall. Wonder if it'll be it's full height again for Charles.

    The news from Ukraine is good. The war needs to be over - a hostile stalemate is no good. I hope that Russia survives it as an intact state that can still guard its nukes.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    I have never had servants and anyway everyone deserves respect and not a good look for Charles
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    May want to give some thought to what works. Perhaps towed artillery isn't obsolete.
    There has been some fine towed artillery on display from His Majesty’s forces over the last 48 hours.

    Not much use in an actual war though, think of all the food required for the horses.
    ISTR that the 13-pounders with the King's Troop are repurposed Ordnance QF 13 pounder Mk II antiaircraft guns that were repurposed Great War 13 pounder field guns. Obvs the carriages have been changed twice, but the guns are the same except they put in a catch to stop the ammunition sliding out of the anti-aircraft piece at high elevation. This was removed for ceremonial use ...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    Two late Swedish polls - polling tomorrow.

    SKOP has the centre left on 51.6% and the centre right on 47.6%

    Demoskop has the centre left on 49.6% and the centre right on 49.4%

    Both pollsters have the Sweden Democrats 2-3 points ahead of the Moderates.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    DavidL said:

    Oh Harry, what was that?

    Did he flick the bird?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Russian State TV tonight should be a laugh.

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    Tut, surely you mean 9/32 of an inch.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,341
    edited September 10
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    Didn’t Charles make one of his servants hold a specimen bottle whilst he urinated into it?

    I’m so happy Charles is king.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    Russian State TV tonight should be a laugh.

    They’ll probably turn the whole broadcast over to coverage of the Queen.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 844

    Meghan and Kate, side-by-side in black…

    Piers Morgan won't like that
    Aw, diddums.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited September 10
    Good to see Harry, Wlliam, Meghan and Katherine all back lined up in a row. If the social media polarisers and the seried ranks of culture war tribalists hate it, it's a good thing.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    I noticed that too, his fuffle on the pen. Shades of his Pa. Apple, tree etc.
  • Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Interesting thread on the impact on China…

    https://twitter.com/halbrands/status/1568622130916429824?s=21&t=3d91mpWvxMBMSbGTE6rdnA
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 18,315
    Just catching up with the energy debate, where apparently warm sentiments were expressed about tidal (by Theresa May no less, who turned it down) and agreed with by JRM. Is tidal back on the agenda?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,822
    Sandpit said:

    Russian State TV tonight should be a laugh.

    They’ll probably turn the whole broadcast over to coverage of the Queen.
    That would allow quite a lot of scope for implicit criticism of the regime, with commentary about the end of an era, the transfer of power, etc.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    Didn’t Charles make one of his servants hold a specimen bottle whilst he urinated into it?

    I’m so happy Charles is king.
    The Queen is dead, long live the Tampon.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    edited September 10
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Against whom? I have always questioned whether Russia was a military threat (they are still a damn nuisance with cyber and with acts of terrorism like Salisbury) but the answer to this is now absolutely clear. It is no.

    So Europe either chooses to play where the action is (in the Pacific) or it chooses not to. I think all bar us will choose not and even our contribution will be pretty token. So I agree, the promise of 3% GDP will not be met and nor should it be.
  • kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    On Inkwell Gate it was on the wrong side of the table for the first signatories HMKCIII, HMQC etc - immediately in front of them - rather than at the top of the table above the document. It was on the correct side of the table for the subsequent signatories who signed from the other side of the table.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,913
    I hope the passing of the Queen can act as a catalyst to bring William and Harry back together. Perhaps this can be a new chapter .
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    IshmaelZ said:
    Mountain out of a molehill.
    Shit, do you look like that when ordering the servants to move an inkwell 7 mm?
    I noticed that too, his fuffle on the pen. Shades of his Pa. Apple, tree etc.
    That video misses the bit earlier where they got in the way of signing the other declarations.
  • kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    "Bizarre" is a very generous description of that Stokes' innings. There is a test match to be won here and a series against the top ranked country. Why are England playing like dilettantes?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 41,822
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    You hanker for less transatlanticism in Europe?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    129/6. Pope is out.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    DavidL said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Against whom? I have always questioned whether Russia was a military threat (they are still a damn nuisance with cyber and with acts of terrorism like Salisbury) but the answer to this is now absolutely clear. It is no.

    So Europe either chooses to play where the action is (in the Pacific) or it chooses not to. I think all bar us will choose not and even our contribution will be pretty token. So I agree, the promise of 3% GDP will not be met and nor should it be.
    The French will want to be in the Pacific as they have territory there. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
  • .
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    Saying China is not directly our business is every bit as ignorant and naïve as saying Russia isn't our business.
    It can't be because I'll say it again - China is not directly our business, militarily. Russia otoh is.
    You saying it again, just exposes your naivety.

    You're wrong. It is our business, every bit as much as Russia is.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180
    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,707
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Yes, that is career-ending levels of rubbish
    I think it is too early to draw these conclusions.
    But even if the Russian army 'fold', in the face of this offensive, the reality will be that all the intelligence assessments underestimated the conventional capacity of the Russian Army, it isn't a case of one or two discredited writers.
    This really isn't a case of some mythical idea of the west 'not having the guts to fight Putin'.
    The foreign policy piece argued that it is preferable to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of Ukraine which is still in retrospect correct as it would have avoided a load of human tragedy.
    We don't know how this ends and celebrations of 'beating back Putin' are in my view dangerously tempting fate.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,996
    edited September 10
    Andy_JS said:

    129/6. Pope is out.

    Francis still has a long way left to serve, I think.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,913

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    edited September 10
    stodge said:

    Two late Swedish polls - polling tomorrow.

    SKOP has the centre left on 51.6% and the centre right on 47.6%

    Demoskop has the centre left on 49.6% and the centre right on 49.4%

    Both pollsters have the Sweden Democrats 2-3 points ahead of the Moderates.

    Interestingly I don't think the share of the national vote is the most important factor. Constituencies are still important even though it's proportional representation, if it's a very close result.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 2,745
    DavidL said:

    "Bizarre" is a very generous description of that Stokes' innings. There is a test match to be won here and a series against the top ranked country. Why are England playing like dilettantes?

    Because they're not very good?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    “Fix bayonets”.

    And then no one will still be glued on.
  • sladeslade Posts: 1,541
    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    Those writing an epitaph for Russia as a European threat are being rather premature. My guess is defeat in Ukraine (if it comes, and we all hope it does) implies an even more bonkers nationalist nutter in charge and/or Russia coming to rely on China.

    We will continue to need to sharpen our defences. Sad, but true.
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 1,237
    edited September 10
    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.
    The Ukraine armed forces are doing a fantastic job, and it's their lives on the line. But it's Superpower level of military intelligence and equipment (largely supplied by the US) that had a significant impact here. Without that I can't see Ukraine having the level of success they are currently having.
  • OFF Topic - earlier this morning (WAY earlier Pacific Daylight Time) yours truly watched the 2nd announcement of King Charles III's accession to the thrown in City of London. Then say recorded Accession Council and first proclamation at Palace of St James.

    The surprisingly low-key Privy Council meeting impressed me much more than the pomp outdoors. Am sure plenty of folks disagreed, to each their own on that score!

    Seeing all seven living QEII Prime Ministers in a (very decorous) scrum was a sight to see.

    Ditto Queen Camilla and the Prince of Wales on the stage with King Charles, with the sovereign himself looking quite relaxed, formal but not absurdly so. Especially liked when he rifled through his agenda - something nobody else in the camera's eye was un-self-conscious enough to do.

    Also thought that Penny Mordaunt did a fine job leading the meeting. She appeared slightly nervous - and no wonder; certainly not enough for adverse comment, but sufficient to keep her focused and on track throughout.

    In contrast, the Prime Minister struck me as even more doe-in-the-headlights than per usual. Which is NOT a huge problem for her at THIS juncture, but something she needs to work on. Especially as in the case of Liz Truss, this has tendency to make her features appear even flatter and less-personable than per usual.

    Perhaps most interesting part was King's swearing & signing Oath to uphold Church of Scotland, both the act itself AND fact that it was witnessed by the First Minister. Also interesting (to me anyway) that the current Big Fish of the North bowed but didn't curtsy (as far as I could tell). Also noted that former Big Fish was also in attendance; am guessing they made a point of swimming on opposite sides of the room!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    edited September 10

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 1,913
    More important for the future of US democracy is what happens in state legislatures, governor races and other state posts .

    It’s encouraging to see the Dems with this lead for the House but that would still give the GOP a majority because of the gerrymandering.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    edited September 10
    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    He continues. Along with half a dozen he just gained from his Dad who doesn’t keep his own.
  • glwglw Posts: 8,473
    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    It's bloody obvious that Western assessments of Russian military capability were completely off the mark. The last six months hace shown that Russians weapons are crap, Russian leadership is crap, Russian doctrine is crap, Russian training is crap, Russian logistics is crap, and Russian intelligence is crap. About the only thing the Russian military is exceptional at is committing war crimes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,328
    darkage said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    The RAND Corporation take on Ukraine back at the beginning of the year, was way more embarrassing than anything Dura Ace has said.
    https://twitter.com/scharap/status/1484501166931206147

    They’re actually paid to be experts at this stuff.

    Yes, that is career-ending levels of rubbish
    I think it is too early to draw these conclusions.
    But even if the Russian army 'fold', in the face of this offensive, the reality will be that all the intelligence assessments underestimated the conventional capacity of the Russian Army, it isn't a case of one or two discredited writers.
    This really isn't a case of some mythical idea of the west 'not having the guts to fight Putin'.
    The foreign policy piece argued that it is preferable to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of Ukraine which is still in retrospect correct as it would have avoided a load of human tragedy.
    We don't know how this ends and celebrations of 'beating back Putin' are in my view dangerously tempting fate.
    "Underestimated"??
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    nico679 said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Please tell me this is just some Twitter rubbish . That would be appalling , especially as Charles has been outspoken on the environment .
    Partly it is indeed outrage froth, but it appears Extinctiin Rebellion themselves split on whether to 'do stuff'.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,054

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Do they actually want to get lynched? Because disturbing a state funeral is a really good way to go about it. They’re stupid, but not that stupid.

    Oh, I know what, let’s be idiots on the day when you can’t move in the city for armed police, spooks, and half the army. None of whom care about your human right to make an arse of yourselves.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 8,227
    edited September 10
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    We're looking at the future now. Europe can't rely forever on the post WW2 settlement whereby the US underwrites its defence against Russia. Russia is fading, the US is switching attention to China, put this together and what do you get? You get a Common European Defence Capability. But not by next Thursday.
    Hell no.

    You get a Europe of nations willing to work together within NATO, like the UK, Poland, Estonia etc - while freeloaders like Germany and Ireland opt out.

    France will oscillate between the two camps depending upon who is in charge.

    And European nations that take defence seriously will be as bothered about China as the USA is.
  • kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    The attention of the USA, however, will very much be turned from Russia to China.

    Europe needs to learn to live without constant US support, step up and provide for its own defence.
    Yep, Common European Defence Capability to replace NATO - gradually over a long long time.
    Absolutely not a chance in hell.

    NATO has worked, relying upon France/Germany has not.
    In best Father Ted voice, countries are countries and alliances are collections of countries, NATO being an alliance to which Germany, France.and the UK belong.:
  • biggles said:

    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    He continues. Along with half a dozen he just gained from his Dad who doesn’t keep his own.
    Dad’s got Normandy to Duke over now
  • JACK_WJACK_W Posts: 602
    edited September 10
    slade said:

    Question for our constitutional experts - now William is Prince of Wales does he continue to be Duke of Cambridge or does the title pass to George?

    The titles stay with the Prince of Wales. George now becomes Prince George of Wales
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 2,707
    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    kle4 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    For comparison, total NATO defence spending is around $1 trillion

    That is 2/3 of Russia’s entire GDP - $1.4 trillion

    Russia cannot win all out conventional war with NATO, it would have to use nukes and commit suicide to get a draw

    Hence the irrationality of calls for more defence spending because of this.
    Not really. Plenty of resources being eaten up and we're not even full participants, and the US is doing all the heavy lifting which wouldn't have been the case for all presidents. Just need to spend on less white elephants.
    Once Russia have failed in Ukraine, they'll be spent (both meanings) and demoralized. And China isn't directly our business. Not militarily anyway. So I think the long term trend on UK defence spending as % of gdp should be (and will be) down. A minority view, I imagine, but that's how I see it.
    China will be in no great hurry to do anything militarily. They're winning the new war of Empires. A failing Russian sphere will naturally fall under their auspices in the coming years.

    I doubt any superpower will want to chance its arm any time soon in doing anything militarily. Ukraine shines a light on the excuses made for VietNam, Korea, Afghanistan (x2), Iraq - superpowers aren't really what it says on the tin.

    So in many ways this should decrease defence spending as it seems rather pointless, but on the other hand if you ever actually imagine that you might want to achieve anything militarily you realise you might need to spend more.

    One successful offensive in Ukraine and now its game over, cut defence spending?

    I do not share that outlook at all.

    The long term picture looks to be conflict with China. Look at what happened in Hong Kong. It can't just be ignored.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Sandpit said:

    In reading the room news, Extinction Rebellion calling for people to glue themsrlves to the route of ERs coffin.
    If they think peoole late for work were pissed off......

    Do they actually want to get lynched? Because disturbing a state funeral is a really good way to go about it. They’re stupid, but not that stupid.

    Oh, I know what, let’s be idiots on the day when you can’t move in the city for armed police, spooks, and half the army. None of whom care about your human right to make an arse of yourselves.
    I think its the most radical portion only. I doubt they are that stupid
This discussion has been closed.