Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that this is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
There's a hybrid system in the nearest grocery store to me (Metropolitan): Supermarkets in the Seattle area are adding automated checkout stations, and recently I learned that some, including the one just installed there, only takes debit and credit cards. So, when I pick up a copy of the New York Times this morning -- I like the Tuesday science section, though it is not as good as it was years ago -- I won't be able to pay cash for it at one of the automated stations. (I now usually pay cash for purchases costing less than 20 dollars, even though Chase gives me a little back for every purchase made with their credit card.)
In contrast, the next nearest supermarket (QFC), part of the immense Kroger chain, has automated checking stations that do take cash.
Its interesting doing research on this that (unsurprisingly I suppose) the US is facing these issues sooner than we are. New York, Washington, Philadelphia and San Francisco have all passed laws banning businesses from refusing cash. As has Colorado. Massachusetts passed such a law as long ago as 1978. Again citing the fact that it is discriminatory against the poorest in society.
Here, in the UK, Which (Consumers Assn as was) has been campaigning on the cash matter for a long time, and the related one of bank branches: for instance
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson than Margaret Thatcher and Charles has long been an eco warrior.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough.
As with the too small desk, one is left wondering why none of this is rehearsed, including testing the pens. It is the rank amateurism that is so depressing.
Northolt doesn't have a long runway. There was a story that a 707 landed there accidently many years ago mistaking it for Heathrow. The story goes that they had to tear out all the seats to get it back out again and that's why there was a big sign saying 'NO' (for Northolt) on the gas-storage in South Harrow.
Not Northolt, but there was a Ryanair flight that landed in 2006 at an airfield outside Derry, mistaking it for the passenger airport. So it isn't that unusual.
OT pc users should be aware today is Patch Tuesday so beware of large patches being applied automatically, possibly with reboots, over the next day or two.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
Because he is. This was known before he ascended to the throne.
Not many people start a new career in their early 70s
So he's just a tester of the ground for the Great Smithson Assumption!?
You'll have to fix your little pciture though - I always think it looks like you're smoking a popeye type pipe, but it turns out when one zooms in that it's just a chair back. (admittedly my eyesight if rubbish)
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish aristocracy, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
Because he is. This was known before he ascended to the throne.
Not many people start a new career in their early 70s
So he's just a tester of the ground for the Great Smithson Assumption!?
You'll have to fix your little pciture though - I always think it looks like you're smoking a popeye type pipe, but it turns out when one zooms in that it's just a chair back. (admittedly my eyesight if rubbish)
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
Try reading the link and coming back to me, legal tender in this country is contrary to misbelief not about shops, if a shop doesn't let you get into debt then there is no legal tender issue.
There absolutely is. If a shop totals up your purchases and asks for the total, and at that stage and for the first time declines cash, that's a legal tender issue right there
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes KCIII 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
His mother was half Danish, if that helps. And her mother was rather more than half German.
As with the too small desk, one is left wondering why none of this is rehearsed, including testing the pens. It is the rank amateurism that is so depressing.
It’s a republican plot. Somewhere there’s a stash of leaky Parkers waiting to be unleashed.
As with the too small desk, one is left wondering why none of this is rehearsed, including testing the pens. It is the rank amateurism that is so depressing.
We're British. Muddle and incompetence our watchwords.
Besides, if we appointed people to this roles on the basis they know their shit, rather than being pushed out from the right pussy in the right order with a penis, what would we do with all these fecking aristos?
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes KCIII 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
His mother was half Danish, if that helps. And her mother was rather more than half German.
Do you think we're safe to say that KC is of European descent, whether by birth or place of blood? Not even that, as we are all African (or perhaps Asian) originally.
Watched it and... meh. I'm pretty even-tempered (I don't think I've ever shouted at anyone) but being irritated by a leaky pen? Sure. And especially under the current stress I do think we should sympathise rather than tease him.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes KCIII 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
His mother was half Danish, if that helps. And her mother was rather more than half German.
Do you think we're safe to say that KC is of European descent, whether by birth or place of blood? Not even that, as we are all African (or perhaps Asian) originally.
There's probably some Turk in there if we go back far enough.
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish aristocracy, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
Is that because nobody is descended from Elizabeth I?
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
The pro SLS types have been banging on about Berger being biased to SpaceX, every time he writes a story about SLS, for years. Remember when SLS was going to launch in 2018 - nailed on, dead certain?
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
I'm not pro-SLS BTW. But I'm amazed you cannot see a pro-SpaceX bias in Berger's work, especially since the release of his book. He knows where the money is...
He's been factually correct on all the his reporting, so far. What else do you want?
I've never said he isn't mostly factually correct. Bias can be shown by what you're not reporting, or the emphasis you put on facts. I know you disagree about the problems SpaceX are having with Raptor 2, or the fact they've had to move to Raptor 2 from the first design. What would it take for you to feel they *do* have problems, because you (or Berger) sadly don't seem to give BO the same consideration.
BO is a function of their development style - design rich, hardware poor. So they find an issue on the stand then need to go back to factory with a flight engine.
SpaceX being on Raptor 2, with Raptor 3 in pre testing is inevitable from their style - hardware rich, iterate, with “production releases” along the way.
This is how rocket engines used to be developed. The F1 went through multiple design/RUD/design cycles - something like 20 - before the first Apollo launches. It then iterated *during* Apollo - check out the increasing thrust of first stage through the program. The F1A wasn’t the first revision - it was the last… same for the RL10 and all the other greats. The RS25…
We are many years away from the computing power to design a rocket engine, build it, fire it and ship it.
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
I think a low level flight could have made up for not having the train journey
We see Russia trying to source weapons and retired military personnel from Tajikistan. It's clear that, although they are desperate to do whatever they can to generate additional combat power, they are still unwilling to declare war and trigger a formal mobilisation.
I find it hard to believe they would use nuclear weapons before exhausting the conventional options open to them.
I think, ultimately, if the situation is so desperate that nuclear weapon use might be considered then the priority for Putin will be retaining control in Moscow, and not territory in Ukraine. Does unleashing nuclear weapons on Ukraine help with power struggles within the Kremlin? I don't see it.
The most logical series of events for Russia now, if they're doing logic, would be:
- Go all-in on defence along the whole line for at least a couple of weeks: throw everything at it, in the hope that the lines will stall and Ukraine will need to take a pause - Let the idea settle in Europe that the counteroffensive has run out of steam and we're heading for stalemate - Declare a ceasefire and make a "generous offer" to withdraw from all areas outside Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts as a prelude to talks on the future of those regions - Look and sound as reasonable as possible until Western unity on Ukraine cracks - Negotiate a face-saving deal. Get a few sanctions lifted. Crack down on dissent at home. - Wait a decade - Invade Ukraine again
That sounds like a sensible plan for the Russians.
What I think it misses is the impact of the Ukrainians taking tens of thousands of Russian prisoners. If that happens, the morale of the existing semi conscripts is going to take a dive.
They got off bloody lightly, did you see what happened to everyone at the end of The Godfather vwhile Michael was in church?
You know what this is like? It's like the beginning of the GE 2017 campaign when everyone thought May was just making an awkward start, had plenty of goodwill to get her over the line etc. Adults don't become non functional on the death of a parent, don't have spurts of petty anger at servants and fountain pens. This is who he is, and he's a fucking disaster. You read it here first.
ETA: The 28 members of his household staff include four chefs, five house managers, three valets and dressers and a couple of butlers.
3 servants just to get the old fuck dressed in the morning.
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
I think a low level flight could have made up for not having the train journey
To be fair, the plane was perfectly visible… it’s a beautiful, clear evening here…
Watched it and... meh. I'm pretty even-tempered (I don't think I've ever shouted at anyone) but being irritated by a leaky pen? Sure. And especially under the current stress I do think we should sympathise rather than tease him.
It is a little ridiculous though. 70 odd years of having everything you's ever like. A couple of tricky days when you have to operate a pen..
I wouldn't change the arrangements at all. Our Monarchy and constitution seems to work. Is it idiotic - yes.
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.
I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.
Watched it and... meh. I'm pretty even-tempered (I don't think I've ever shouted at anyone) but being irritated by a leaky pen? Sure. And especially under the current stress I do think we should sympathise rather than tease him.
Courage is grace under pressure. He seems to lack it. Why not buy and carry his own fountain pen?
They worked for the old Prince of Wales, they can try and get a job with the new Prince of Wales
'Staff who are made redundant are expected to be offered searches for alternative employment across all royal households, assistance in finding new jobs externally and an “enhanced” redundancy payment beyond the statutory minimum.'
It was going so well and then I got to the word ''modelling...''
Well, if you are trying to predict what will happen, you are modelling. If you catch a cricket ball, you are modelling. What alternative do you suggest? Oracle at Cumae?
It was going so well and then I got to the word ''modelling...''
Well, if you are trying to predict what will happen, you are modelling. If you catch a cricket ball, you are modelling. What alternative do you suggest? Oracle at Cumae?
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
Until independence goes through, surely being Scottish is either a question of self identifying as such, or else it’s “could you play for Scotland” type rules.
I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.
Well, yes, given his record as a player I've no doubt he could.
(This was brought to you by a member of the @TSE fan club. Anyone who thinks it is in bad taste will have to eat 40 Hawaiian pizzas and admire his shoes.)
There’s nothing precisely equivalent, but another analogue could be Austria-Hungary in WW1.
Though really this is irredentism gone wrong, and the only serious recent example of that (though not involving a declining empire) is the Arab-Israeli wars.
The common theme of belief that a nation a. has no right to exist b. is a puppet controlled by the West is also present.
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
I think a low level flight could have made up for not having the train journey
To be fair, the plane was perfectly visible… it’s a beautiful, clear evening here…
Not from here. Normally I can see planes above the Pennines but haze and a bit of cloud made it impossible.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests, curiosities and commitments over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.
They worked for the old Prince of Wales, they can try and get a job with the new Prince of Wales
'Staff who are made redundant are expected to be offered searches for alternative employment across all royal households, assistance in finding new jobs externally and an “enhanced” redundancy payment beyond the statutory minimum.'
Covered by TUPE. Transfer of Underlings between Princes of England.
King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.
I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too
It was going so well and then I got to the word ''modelling...''
Well, if you are trying to predict what will happen, you are modelling. If you catch a cricket ball, you are modelling. What alternative do you suggest? Oracle at Cumae?
It was going so well and then I got to the word ''modelling...''
Well, if you are trying to predict what will happen, you are modelling. If you catch a cricket ball, you are modelling. What alternative do you suggest? Oracle at Cumae?
Well the rate of success would probably be better with the Oracle. Or we could slaughter a few chickens and examine the entrails.
If you work in and around the financial markets you can see how the chaotic nature of the universe makes seemingly intelligent and well-qualified people look like idiots time and time again.
The Wall Street Journal once ran a headline 'Monkey beats stockpickers again'
A monkey selecting random stocks via cards beat Wall Street's finest on market performance. I mean, doesn't that tell you anything?
The results of modern models show we're no better than the ancient soothsayers. Indeed, things are probably worse because today's soothsayers coat themselves in a veneer of 'qualifications' to give their models more weight.
They get the title 'experts'. People in the ancient world probably guessed the chicken slaughterers were a bunch of chancers.
We allow our soothsayers to have a big say in our lives.
The election wends on, it doesn't feel from this distance like it has caught great light or hit an overriding theme, but has been a little under the surface, not least because the ongoing, now caretaker, Draghi government has continued with its major work, particularly the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (basically COVID recovery and energy security).
In as much as anything has happened, PD, the main centre-left partner, has lost a little polling ground, primarily to M5S, where Conte has had a decent campaign and is now edging Lega.
Aggregate polling around: Right 46, Centre-left 28, M5S 13, Centre 7
That still.points to a substantial right majority of 60%+ of seats in both houses.
Broadly, nobody that popular, but right politicians beat centre-left beat Centre, beat extremes.
Issue net agreement (Quorum / YouTrend for Sky News)
EU and Euro essential to Italy and shouldn't be up for discussion: +25 Should support Ukraine, including supplying arms: -10 Impose continued sanctions on Russia: +9 (As they stand or weaker): +/-0 Fast track citizenship for the school children of immigrants: +30 Italians should have priority over immigrants for public housing: +38 Implement a flat taxation system: +5 Out of work benefits are too generous: +30 Abortion laws are too liberal: -28 Heavier punishments for the cannabis trade: -7 Implement new laws against homophobia and transphobia: +37 Legalise euthanasia for terminal illness: +56
Untangle all that if you will!
What a fascinating set of answers, but also not that uncommon.
Voters in many European countries want their leaders to take a more... activist... approach with Brussels, looking after the national interest. But (right now), they aren't that interested in actually leaving the EU.
It's also interesting that Draghi is the most popular politician - by a mile - in Italy.
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
I think a low level flight could have made up for not having the train journey
To be fair, the plane was perfectly visible… it’s a beautiful, clear evening here…
Not from here. Normally I can see planes above the Pennines but haze and a bit of cloud made it impossible.
They worked for the old Prince of Wales, they can try and get a job with the new Prince of Wales
'Staff who are made redundant are expected to be offered searches for alternative employment across all royal households, assistance in finding new jobs externally and an “enhanced” redundancy payment beyond the statutory minimum.'
Yes, it's probably necessary to give notice to give people access to redundancy protections.
King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.
I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too
Some of the time clearly yes, at other times perhaps not. He's going to need to work on the not times.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
He's gone totally native since he got all those lovely contacts for his SpaceX book.
That's what people said when he predicted the SLS launch date, years back. Which turned out to be optimistic.
Or predicted that Vulcan would slip to the right repeatedly. Which turned out to be exactly right as well.
His track record means he is the top space reporter, now.
The maths is fairly simple - ULA, based on track record, isn't going to integrate new engines to a new booster, doing the testing and launch in 3 months.
No, they didn't say that back then, because he only released his book in March last year. But the time it was published coincided with his articles getting (ahem) rather anti any competitors to SpaceX. And you cannot blame him: I think he has said his next book is also going to be about SpaceX (for all the fanbois), and Musk notoriously cuts off access to journalists who writes stories he does not like - ref. Ashlee Vance.
You may have noticed SpaceX having had a few issues with SS/SH recently. He is oddly less keen to write clickbait articles about those. I wonder why? And Musk repeatedly misses deadlines for that as well....
The pro SLS types have been banging on about Berger being biased to SpaceX, every time he writes a story about SLS, for years. Remember when SLS was going to launch in 2018 - nailed on, dead certain?
He has been rather complimentary about some of the up and coming rocket companies. And has a very good relationship with Tory Bruno.
I'm not pro-SLS BTW. But I'm amazed you cannot see a pro-SpaceX bias in Berger's work, especially since the release of his book. He knows where the money is...
He's been factually correct on all the his reporting, so far. What else do you want?
I've never said he isn't mostly factually correct. Bias can be shown by what you're not reporting, or the emphasis you put on facts. I know you disagree about the problems SpaceX are having with Raptor 2, or the fact they've had to move to Raptor 2 from the first design. What would it take for you to feel they *do* have problems, because you (or Berger) sadly don't seem to give BO the same consideration.
BO is a function of their development style - design rich, hardware poor. So they find an issue on the stand then need to go back to factory with a flight engine.
SpaceX being on Raptor 2, with Raptor 3 in pre testing is inevitable from their style - hardware rich, iterate, with “production releases” along the way.
This is how rocket engines used to be developed. The F1 went through multiple design/RUD/design cycles - something like 20 - before the first Apollo launches. It then iterated *during* Apollo - check out the increasing thrust of first stage through the program. The F1A wasn’t the first revision - it was the last… same for the RL10 and all the other greats. The RS25…
We are many years away from the computing power to design a rocket engine, build it, fire it and ship it.
Yes, but there comes a time when four or five failures in a couple of months becomes more than 'iterate' or 'finding the limits' to a sign the program is in serious trouble. As was the move from Raptor 1 to Raptor 2 (when Musk had been saying that Raptor 1 was the one true Raptor...)
The failures SpaceX are seeing on the test stands *may* be an indication of them testing to the limits. But the more failures we see, the harder that excuse is to make.
And from memory the RS25 (SSME) had many iterations after first flight, as far as the RS25-D. Max power increased by around 10% from the baseline.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
For me, no Russia. Ever. I've (and surely we've) had enough.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
Agree 100%.
Problem with that is that you hit the Sweden problem where those without banking now have serious problems accessing many shops and services because everyone uses cards..
That's not a problem if you have cards, it's a major problem if you don't.
In France it is *illegal* for traders to refuse cash payments in lawful currency. Article 642-3 of the French penal code states that traders cannot “refuse cash payments for the settling of accounts,” and they can be fined up to €150 for doing so. We should copy this . 5:08 PM · Sep 12, 2022"
If traders don't want the security risk of carrying or accepting cash then that should be their prerogative. Take your business elsewhere if you're not happy with that.
Why do people like Hitchens want a big state to micromanage their lives for them? Let people choose what they want to do or accept.
You choose to drive everywhere. Lots of people can't, so they are stuck if they are somewehre miles from another supplier.
So what?
Where you choose to shop, live and spend your money is entirely your choice. Whether you choose to learn to drive or not is your choice.
Cash is a security risk that can lead to armed robberies. If someone doesn't want to take that risk, that is their choice, there's no law against that and nor should there be.
If you're not happy with that, its up to you to change, not others to change for you.
"Choice" is a libertarian shibboleth. But what will you say when you are 67, your licence is taken away or you admit you can't drive safely, and you're living out in the sticks to try and help your children and vice versa?
What about it?
Not a single part of that justifies compelling others to put themselves at risk of burglary or robbery.
Instead they are putting that risk onto the customer. Given the £100 limit on contactless transactions now - introduced without anyone having the chance to object - it is far more dangerous for you to carry a card around now than cash. If anyone gets it they will be able to make purchases with a very good chance they will not be questioned or stopped. That is a far greater risk for the customer than dropping a tenner in the street.
Good look getting much of a shop done for a tenner nowadays. My contactless transactions are secured by fingerprint too, so are far more secure than both cash or card.
I don't carry either cash or plastic on me. There's no need for either anymore.
If you don't want to carry a contactless card, nobody makes you, I don't carry one with me. Nor should any business be compelled to carry anything they don't want to stock, including cash. If you want to take your business elsewhere, then that's your freedom to choose, but if a business decides they're safer and more secure without cash even if it costs them your business, then they should have that right.
Accepting the legal tender of the country should be a pre-requisite of running a business, just like paying taxes. There are still plenty of people who do not carry or own a card and only make purchases by cash. There should not be an apartheid system preventing them from accessing certain businesses.
How many small shops still have the "We don't take 50 pound notes" signs?
Immaterial to my point. Indeed a classic straw man argument given the basis of my argument.
No, it isn't. People have been limiting their acceptance of cash for years. Going the other way, they've limited (generally until quite recently) card transactions to above a certain value.
Personally I like cash. But then, I don't get to close up at the end of the day and walk to a car with a bag of money.
Yes it is a straw man argument. It is no more relevant than the inability to use half pennies these days. The point is that people should be able to make purchases without having to use electronic means. Not being able to use £50 notes does not inhibit that. Not being able to use any cash does inhibit it.
So the equivalence you are trying to suggest is false.
As someone deeply in favour of phasing out the lower value coins and who barely if ever uses cash, I agree with that. There is still a need and desire for some physical cash.
Cash is available for those who want to use it, and can be used at places that choose to accept it.
There are restaurants near me that refuse cash. That's their choice, anyone who goes their knows that they don't accept cash before they get a table. If someone like Richard chooses to take his business elsewhere, that's his choice, but why should these firms be compelled by law to open themselves to burglaries are robberies if they don't want to be open to them?
It’s harder for businesses to find somewhere to deposit cash. During normal working hours it may be possible to use a post office. When a bank closes, so does its night safe. It means that any businesses have no alternatives other than to refuse cash or hold significant sums in their premises.
There’s nothing precisely equivalent, but another analogue could be Austria-Hungary in WW1.
Though really this is irredentism gone wrong, and the only serious recent example of that (though not involving a declining empire) is the Arab-Israeli wars.
The common theme of belief that a nation a. has no right to exist b. is a puppet controlled by the West is also present.
I found it kind of touching and sweet that in the Big Lie, Nasser claimed that the UK had (along with US) intervened militarily in the '67 war, with more aircraft carriers than the Royal Navy then possessed.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
Yes and no. look at the demographics and consider it’s future post-oil and gas.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
That would be sensible and rational, but former Top Nations don't have a great record of managing that transition gracefully.
Britain has done better than many, but even our record isn't perfect.
There’s nothing precisely equivalent, but another analogue could be Austria-Hungary in WW1.
Though really this is irredentism gone wrong, and the only serious recent example of that (though not involving a declining empire) is the Arab-Israeli wars.
The common theme of belief that a nation a. has no right to exist b. is a puppet controlled by the West is also present.
I found it kind of touching and sweet that in the Big Lie, Nasser claimed that the UK had (along with US) intervened militarily in the '67 war, with more aircraft carriers than the Royal Navy then possessed.
Nobody is likely to accuse us of intervening with our current aircraft carriers.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
Yes and no. look at the demographics and consider it’s future post-oil and gas.
Well, if you made Russia a great place to be and to be a part of, all that empty space.... Think 19th Cent America.....
There’s nothing precisely equivalent, but another analogue could be Austria-Hungary in WW1.
Though really this is irredentism gone wrong, and the only serious recent example of that (though not involving a declining empire) is the Arab-Israeli wars.
The common theme of belief that a nation a. has no right to exist b. is a puppet controlled by the West is also present.
I must admit almost to the last moment I simply didn't believe Putin and Russia would do something so unfathomably stupid.
It has turned out to be a catastrophic failure not only of my intelligence but more accurately Russia's. Did Putin really believe or did supine advisers and acolytes convince him there would be no resistance - his troops would be hailed as liberators and no one would fight for Zelenskyy?
72 hours to Lviv and on to the western border - it must have been portrayed as that simple. I could imagine the concerns being about follow up forces keeping pace with the main advance as they rolled through to Kyiv and beyond.
It's the same collective failure that encouraged Saddam to believe he could move in to Kuwait without consequence - it's a feature of dictatorships, the inability of those who serve dictators to think they can offer unfavourable advice without consequences.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
For me, no Russia. Ever. I've (and surely we've) had enough.
Imagine a future post-second-revolution Russia that declared:
“Russia has vast lands and resources, including swathes of land capable of opening up to agriculture due to global warming, but we lack people and dynamism. We have decided to build a new Russia, modelled on the building of the United States. Everyone, from anywhere in the world, is welcome to migrate to Russia, and in return will receive citizenship, the right to vote, and an allocation of land.”
The implications for global GDP, agricultural productivity and demographics are mind boggling.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
Yes and no. look at the demographics and consider it’s future post-oil and gas.
Well, if you made Russia a great place to be and to be a part of, all that empty space.... Think 19th Cent America.....
Add in climate change....
Also, demographics will be much less of an issue as AI kicks in (as it is doing)
So many human jobs will be automated, we won't need half as many people
HMQ just flown directly overhead (Forest of Bowland)… mother (87) couldn’t see the plane and asked “is she high”… couldn’t resist replying “well, it has been six days”…
I think a low level flight could have made up for not having the train journey
To be fair, the plane was perfectly visible… it’s a beautiful, clear evening here…
Not from here. Normally I can see planes above the Pennines but haze and a bit of cloud made it impossible.
Nice sun dog though...
Had to Google sun dog. New one on me.
Parhelia are reasonably common - often seen when there is thin high cloud - but to see the full panoply of ice halos you usually need somewhere a lot colder.
Quite confused as to how it is disrespectful to watch the football or strictly or stay in a wooden cabin during this period of national mourning, or for our MPs to do any work for once, but fine to announce redundancies for people who have worked at Clarence House, some for decades, for the new King.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
For me, no Russia. Ever. I've (and surely we've) had enough.
Imagine a future post-second-revolution Russia that declared:
“Russia has vast lands and resources, including swathes of land capable of opening up to agriculture due to global warming, but we lack people and dynamism. We have decided to build a new Russia, modelled on the building of the United States. Everyone, from anywhere in the world, is welcome to migrate to Russia, and in return will receive citizenship, the right to vote, and an allocation of land.”
The implications for global GDP, agricultural productivity and demographics are mind boggling.
King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.
I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too
Certainly more than Johnson but that would be fairly easy
Why does King Charles and the royal family hate the NHS?
Hasn't he just taken a vow to defend the national religion?
Just in Scotland?
Didn't know we'd had a coronation with the Honours of Scotland. You may be thinking of the Proclamation. You get your (geographical) bit in Westminster Abbey, anyway.
Can Nicola please state unequivocally that the Stone of Scone isn't leaving Scotland. C'mon - score the open goal!
I really cannot see how doing so could possibly be a good idea, for the cause of Scottish independence, for the cause of republicanism, for the continuing legend of the Stone and therefore its pulling power as a tourism attraction, even for Russia (if that's your bag). It's an all round 360 degree shit idea. Do you have any arguments in its favour?
I am an English unionist republican who is happy to ally tactically with supporters of Scottish independence in the context of getting rid of the monarchy - on the assumption of mutual respect, as in any tactical alliance. Something very good might come out of that, e.g. a UR (not a UK) comprised of four republics each of which has a proper (i.e. written) constitution that allows it to hold a binding secession referendum at any time but no sooner than 5 years after the last one, and which can change its constitution to say otherwise if it wishes, following the constitutional procedure for changing the constitution and without reference to a union supreme court.
One of my probs with Scottish separatists is that some of them say they truly despise the Tories, a wholly laudable attitude to take, while unfortunately having an insufficient understanding of what the Tories are really about. ^ Said programme could be a help. Don't underestimate, Scottish friends, how much some English people detest the Tories too. As I have said before, WTF is the British monarchy other than the Tory party playing dressup? Many voters in Scotland whether pro or anti independence would agree with that characterisation. It needs to appear now in more and more minds: f*** the Tories and their monarchy.
Dumping monarchy is a key goal if things are going to move forward in these isles. It is indispensable. Put it centre.
What a load of rubbish. King Charles has more Scottish blood than English blood and the monarchy is at most One Nation Tory it is certainly not Thatcherite, for starters the late Queen got on better with Harold Wilson that Margaret Thatcher.
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough
Surely 1/4 mixed Danish/Greek, 1/4 mixed English/German, 1/4 mixed English/Scots and 1/4 English nominally.
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
The Queen Mother was Scottish, the royal family are also descended from Mary Queen of Scots more directly than Elizabeth 1st of England
You said "more Scottish blood than English". But you're confounding place of birth and genetic propinquity.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
Fwiw QM was born in London or environs, seemed to be the preference of poshos, even Scotch ones. Who knows how that fits in with with HYUFD’s ethno nationalist world view.
King Chazbo's reign may be an interesting test of something. Does the public value causes and interests over interpersonal skills. Both are important, ofcourse.
I think Charles has good interpersonal skills actually, probably better than the current PM and maybe even the Leader of the Opposition too
Certainly more than Johnson but that would be fairly easy
Are you sure? I'd have said that Johnson had excellent interpersonal skills, he just used them for evil.
A Johnson who was as charmless on the surface as he was deep down would have been a much less effective conman.
Zelensky, words just fail me. From his latest speech:
"Do you still think that we are “one people”? Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us make concessions? You really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we for? What are we talking about? Lip reading: Without gas or without you? without you Without light or without you? without you Without water or without you? without you Without food or without you? without you Cold, hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your “friendship and brotherhood”."
Cometh the hour, cometh the man really doesn't do him justice. He is a moral colossus.
I'm watching Servants of the People at the moment. It's rather good. But I bet he wishes he was still writing it!
It is amusing that the actor Ronald Reagan of course helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, which fuelled Putin's revanchism only to see defeated by a Ukrainian actor this time.
Actors 2 - 0 Soviets/Russia
3-0 if you count that brilliant Arnie vid on the invasion (March).
Which btw wasn't at all bellicose.
What about Václav Havel? - "Hippy playwright with a manual typewriter", as PJ O'Rourke put it, helped bring down the USSR.
Yep, the power of the pen. Mightier than? Probably not, but still mighty.
Speaking of which - although I'm not loving this even as I type - do we think there's a viable "take" that this could be a Suez for Russia? ie an act of hubristic overreach by (the leadership of) a fading imperial power that has failed to come to terms with its diminution in the world cf its recent past.
Could I pop that one out on the drivelpipe if I could write it snappily enough?
The bad news for Russia is that is far worse that Suez. In Suez, the actual invasion worked well.
It is hard to think of anything comparable amongst the western powers. The scale of humiliation to Russia if Ukraine 'win' would probably be something close to that experienced by Germans post WW2.
Agreed. It’s sort of like Vietnam happening, but just over the border in Canada.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
The irony is that if Russia reformed itself, got its economy going, achieved a GDP per capita like South Korea - and there is no lack of human capital in Russia - then - given its sheer size and resources, as well - it would easily outrank all countries bar China, the USA (and India to come)
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
Yes and no. look at the demographics and consider it’s future post-oil and gas.
Well, if you made Russia a great place to be and to be a part of, all that empty space.... Think 19th Cent America.....
Add in climate change....
Also, demographics will be much less of an issue as AI kicks in (as it is doing)
So many human jobs will be automated, we won't need half as many people
Well, the Luddites thought that at the time of the industrial revolution, a process that massively increased what humans could do. So, while the human population is set to fall over the coming centuries, I suspect that there will still be plenty for them to do and to be.
As for "Suez", I think this Russian disaster even makes Dien Bien Phu look OK:::
Comments
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/6-things-you-need-to-know-about-new-bill-to-protect-cash-access-and-scam-victims-a7jos7s4A8Kh
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/more-people-could-turn-to-cash-to-help-budget-as-cost-of-living-rises-aada54Q9HEAk
Even Sturgeon backs keeping the monarchy as she knows she needs to convince soft Unionists who want to keep the royal family to ever have a chance of independence. Far left republicans are nowhere near enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4WxF2gYWWw
Unless you think that the royal blood of Charles II erases all else? Yet he was half POrtuguese ...
You'll have to fix your little pciture though - I always think it looks like you're smoking a popeye type pipe, but it turns out when one zooms in that it's just a chair back. (admittedly my eyesight if rubbish)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62892013
I think that's the standard flight corridor for aircraft crossing the Midlands. I see them often enough. They use the Chase as a holding area.
It must have gone pretty much straight over my house, but there's some cloud about.
King George VI was English. His wife was born in Scotland, but the child of a Scot and an Englishwoman. That makes the [edit] late HMtQ 3/4 English. Unless you think there is something mystical about trhe blood of particular persons taken at random 400+ years ago. You could just as well argue that KC is Dutch - more direct and reliable line of descent there.
I think there is something in the analogy to our post-Suez adjustment to not being a superpower though. Russians need to realise that absent their nuclear arsenal they are just another nation in the U.K./Fr/Ger/Jap range of scale and influence. They are going to have to decide whether to apply to rejoin the human race post-Ukraine, or to become a Chinese puppet.
King Charles’s staff given redundancy notice during church service for Queen
Exclusive: Employees said to be livid and shaken as up to 100 Clarence House employees told they could lose jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-staff-given-redundancy-notice-during-church-service-for-queen?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Somewhere there’s a stash of leaky Parkers waiting to be unleashed.
Besides, if we appointed people to this roles on the basis they know their shit, rather than being pushed out from the right pussy in the right order with a penis, what would we do with all these fecking aristos?
SpaceX being on Raptor 2, with Raptor 3 in pre testing is inevitable from their style - hardware rich, iterate, with “production releases” along the way.
This is how rocket engines used to be developed. The F1 went through multiple design/RUD/design cycles - something like 20 - before the first Apollo launches. It then iterated *during* Apollo - check out the increasing thrust of first stage through the program. The F1A wasn’t the first revision - it was the last… same for the RL10 and all the other greats. The RS25…
We are many years away from the computing power to design a rocket engine, build it, fire it and ship it.
What I think it misses is the impact of the Ukrainians taking tens of thousands of Russian prisoners. If that happens, the morale of the existing semi conscripts is going to take a dive.
You know what this is like? It's like the beginning of the GE 2017 campaign when everyone thought May was just making an awkward start, had plenty of goodwill to get her over the line etc. Adults don't become non functional on the death of a parent, don't have spurts of petty anger at servants and fountain pens. This is who he is, and he's a fucking disaster. You read it here first.
ETA: The 28 members of his household staff include four chefs, five house managers, three valets and dressers and a couple of butlers.
3 servants just to get the old fuck dressed in the morning.
I wouldn't change the arrangements at all. Our Monarchy and constitution seems to work. Is it idiotic - yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/13/new-chief-secretary-to-treasury-faces-questions-over-financial-interests-chris-philp
I would push for the former rather than the latter since, if I move to and live in Scotland pre-independence presumably I’ll be entitled to become a Scottish citizen. However, either way
I reckon the King can claim to be Scottish. He could play for Scotland.
'Staff who are made redundant are expected to be offered searches for alternative employment across all royal households, assistance in finding new jobs externally and an “enhanced” redundancy payment beyond the statutory minimum.'
(This was brought to you by a member of the @TSE fan club. Anyone who thinks it is in bad taste will have to eat 40 Hawaiian pizzas and admire his shoes.)
There’s nothing precisely equivalent, but another analogue could be Austria-Hungary in WW1.
Though really this is irredentism gone wrong, and the only serious recent example of that (though not involving a declining empire) is the Arab-Israeli wars.
The common theme of belief that a nation a. has no right to exist b. is a puppet controlled by the West is also present.
"it's only a matter of time before the state funeral is postponed as a mark of respect to the Queen"
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1569701360869703680
Nice sun dog though...
It would be in a special 2nd tier behind the three superpowers but ahead of Ger, UK, Jap, Fra. A truly great power, able to maneuver on its own a lot of the time, and extract grand bargains - and not a puppet of China, Europe OR America
Surely that would be enough to make a Russian glow with pride?
In the mad Russian TV news debates you can actually get a glimpse of this: dawning on the Putin-ist presenters. Russia simply is not the USA, nor China, nor can it compete toe to toe with Europe/NATO. But Russia is still immense, and should be happy with that, and Russians could have a sweet life. Puissant and independent
Tragically, Putin's insane war has set back this vision of a civilised and powerful Russia by decades
Eerie
If you work in and around the financial markets you can see how the chaotic nature of the universe makes seemingly intelligent and well-qualified people look like idiots time and time again.
The Wall Street Journal once ran a headline 'Monkey beats stockpickers again'
A monkey selecting random stocks via cards beat Wall Street's finest on market performance. I mean, doesn't that tell you anything?
The results of modern models show we're no better than the ancient soothsayers. Indeed, things are probably worse because today's soothsayers coat themselves in a veneer of 'qualifications' to give their models more weight.
They get the title 'experts'. People in the ancient world probably guessed the chicken slaughterers were a bunch of chancers.
We allow our soothsayers to have a big say in our lives.
Voters in many European countries want their leaders to take a more... activist... approach with Brussels, looking after the national interest. But (right now), they aren't that interested in actually leaving the EU.
It's also interesting that Draghi is the most popular politician - by a mile - in Italy.
The failures SpaceX are seeing on the test stands *may* be an indication of them testing to the limits. But the more failures we see, the harder that excuse is to make.
And from memory the RS25 (SSME) had many iterations after first flight, as far as the RS25-D. Max power increased by around 10% from the baseline.
That's not a problem if you have cards, it's a major problem if you don't.
Britain has done better than many, but even our record isn't perfect.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkg3nb/ukraines-astronomers-say-there-are-tons-of-ufos-over-kyiv
No kidding
It has turned out to be a catastrophic failure not only of my intelligence but more accurately Russia's. Did Putin really believe or did supine advisers and acolytes convince him there would be no resistance - his troops would be hailed as liberators and no one would fight for Zelenskyy?
72 hours to Lviv and on to the western border - it must have been portrayed as that simple. I could imagine the concerns being about follow up forces keeping pace with the main advance as they rolled through to Kyiv and beyond.
It's the same collective failure that encouraged Saddam to believe he could move in to Kuwait without consequence - it's a feature of dictatorships, the inability of those who serve dictators to think they can offer unfavourable advice without consequences.
“Russia has vast lands and resources, including swathes of land capable of opening up to agriculture due to global warming, but we lack people and dynamism.
We have decided to build a new Russia, modelled on the building of the United States. Everyone, from anywhere in the world, is welcome to migrate to Russia, and in return will receive citizenship, the right to vote, and an allocation of land.”
The implications for global GDP, agricultural productivity and demographics are mind boggling.
Also, demographics will be much less of an issue as AI kicks in (as it is doing)
So many human jobs will be automated, we won't need half as many people
https://atoptics.co.uk/halosim.htm
A Johnson who was as charmless on the surface as he was deep down would have been a much less effective conman.
As for "Suez", I think this Russian disaster even makes Dien Bien Phu look OK:::