The Conservatives will lose the next election and must decide how to leave “some form of a legacy” to Labour, a senior Tory MP has said.
Sir Charles Walker, a former chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, said that YouGov’s poll for The Times showing Labour with a 33-point lead was “pretty shattering” and reflected a “cliff-edge collapse” in Conservative support.
I don't know about this particular MP - he's possibly one of the less toxic ones - but I'd imagine that most Tory MPs will be thinking about 1. hanging on until the last possible moment, 2. how much money can we extract from the public purse, 3. how much money can we give to potential post-election employers, so they might take us on after we've received our marching orders, and 4. how badly can we damage the country, in the hope that we can get gullible voters to blame Labour when they're unable to fix the mess that we created?
Your nom de plume (if you excuse the pun), is clearly quite appropriate. Not in terms just of your obvious puffed out chest of self-importance, but also the miniscule size of your brain. Most MPs of all parties go into politics for positive reasons. While there are a number of dullards and charlatans in the Tory Party there are an equal number in the other parties too. Slandering them all because you are so partisan to be unable to see the good in someone of a differing political viewpoint just demonstrates your immaturity and general stupidity.
Er, it's not as if many MPs from other parties will be worrying? So 'Tory' is quite appropriate.
No birds sing here, No trees grow; Only we, shoulder to shoulder, Grow into the earth.
The planet burns and turns Above our Motherland there’s smoke. And we need a victory. One for us all - we don't care about the cost. One for us all - we don't care about the cost.
Deadly fire awaits us But it’s powerless. Cast doubt aside; off into the night is leaving Our 10th paratroop battalion, Our 10th paratroop battalion.
Just as the fire dies down, another order sounds, The postman will go mad looking for us.
A crimson rocket is flying, Machine-gun rounds pound And we need a victory. One for us all - we don't care about the cost. One for us all - we don't care about the cost.
Deadly fire awaits us But it’s powerless. Cast doubt aside; off into the night is leaving Our 10th paratroop battalion, Our 10th paratroop battalion.
From Kursk to Oryol the war has led us, To the enemy’s very gates: that, brother, is where we are.
Some day we’ll remember this And we won’t believe it outselves. And now we need a victory. One for us all - we don't care about the cost. One for us all - we don't care about the cost.
Deadly fire awaits us But it’s powerless. Cast doubt aside; off into the night is leaving Our 10th paratroop battalion, Our 10th paratroop battalion.
Hello, Hello_clouds.
Avoid the trolling bit and, Russian or not, you'll be fine here.
Labour had a reckoning with its extreme elements while not in power. The Conservatives have to face up to the same task, while in power. Not easy. But if they don't, they're screwed. https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575889960087203840
While not remotely a fan of this omnishambles of a government (sic), some of us are old enough to remember how Mrs T was only there "temporarily" and soon one of the "grown ups" would be along to take over....
Apart from the economics, who on gods green earth thought local radio would be an easy option?
Not sure it was quite like that in 1979 tbh. Thatcher's popularity descended over a year or more. And at most she was only (!) ever 16% behind Labour.
Truss is not remotely in the same league as Thatcher - for one thing she hasn't got the intellectual heft behind her that Thatcher enjoyed, or the ability to communicate, or "roll the pitch".
My general point was that (as misappropriated to Samuel Clemens), reports of her imminent departure may be greatly exaggerated.
Mind you, as one Tory MP of that era helpfully observed "The Tory Party only ever panics in a crisis".....
Liz Truss is a panto parody of Margaret Thatcher, similar to how Boris Johnson is a panto parody of Winston Churchill.
Highly doubt that EITHER alleged role model would be flattered, let alone amused, by these "tribute" acts.
My thoughts entirely. It is like watching someone doing a very badly executed version of "purple haze" by Jimmy Hendrix when they still haven't quite mastered the main riff to Smoke on the Water
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I think you're pissing into the radioactive wind.
If I wanted to live in the remnants of our civilisation. I'd go and eat puffins on the Western Isles.
I get criticised if I post too few (cherry-picking). I get criticised if I post too many (bloody jocks).
Hopefully get some proper polls around the SC decision.
Fundamental methodological error: never measure at or around an “event”. Regular, say monthly, polls are your friend. Scotland used to have two (System Three and ? I forget the other, ICM? courtesy of G Herald and Scotsman) until the rise of the SNP. Odd coincidence that they disappeared about then 😉
Sadly I can’t speak Russian. What’s that they’re singing? Is it “Whistle a Happy Tune” from the King and I?
Look at the streets around them in the long shots. It's a couple of pens for a few thousand people bussed in for the regime. This in a city of 12m people.
The BBC certainly showed clips and it is obviously a much smaller crowd then Russian propaganda would have you believe
Perhaps Mad Vlad's good buddy the Sage > Security Risk of Mar-a-Lardo can lend him a hand, via 45's own proven "fuzzy math" re: crowd "estimates"?
So like Brown in 2010, Liz intends to hold on as long as possible.
Not a sign they think they will win.
No, I think she’s so deluded she thinks she will win.
Hate to see how they react when the growth they are convinced is coming doesn’t appear.
Blame it on Remoaners, Putin, the EU, the media, lazy British workers, Gordon Brown, the Bank of England, the unions, the civil service, the weather, whatever...
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Sadly I can’t speak Russian. What’s that they’re singing? Is it “Whistle a Happy Tune” from the King and I?
Look at the streets around them in the long shots. It's a couple of pens for a few thousand people bussed in for the regime. This in a city of 12m people.
The BBC certainly showed clips and it is obviously a much smaller crowd then Russian propaganda would have you believe
A Potemkin crowd for a Potemkin Hitler. The whole country is now more or less an empty theatre, and the hall of war criminals watching the farcial proceedings already knew that. In good Scots we´d call it a toom tabard on a shoogly peg.
The same CBI whose director general Tony Danker said in a Treasury press release after the mini-budget: "This is a turning point for our economy. Today is day one of a new UK growth approach."
The Conservatives will lose the next election and must decide how to leave “some form of a legacy” to Labour, a senior Tory MP has said.
Sir Charles Walker, a former chairman of the 1922 Committee of Tory backbenchers, said that YouGov’s poll for The Times showing Labour with a 33-point lead was “pretty shattering” and reflected a “cliff-edge collapse” in Conservative support.
I don't know about this particular MP - he's possibly one of the less toxic ones - but I'd imagine that most Tory MPs will be thinking about 1. hanging on until the last possible moment, 2. how much money can we extract from the public purse, 3. how much money can we give to potential post-election employers, so they might take us on after we've received our marching orders, and 4. how badly can we damage the country, in the hope that we can get gullible voters to blame Labour when they're unable to fix the mess that we created?
Your nom de plume (if you excuse the pun), is clearly quite appropriate. Not in terms just of your obvious puffed out chest of self-importance, but also the miniscule size of your brain. Most MPs of all parties go into politics for positive reasons. While there are a number of dullards and charlatans in the Tory Party there are an equal number in the other parties too. Slandering them all because you are so partisan to be unable to see the good in someone of a differing political viewpoint just demonstrates your immaturity and general stupidity.
Er, it's not as if many MPs from other parties will be worrying? So 'Tory' is quite appropriate.
Not difficult concept for a man of your intellect to grasp @Carnyx ; I was referring to the other poster's somewhat juvenile insistence that MPs of a party that he does not support must be crooked and venal. I wouldn't even accuse SNP politicians of that. Well not ALL anyway.
Even if the mini-budget were a work of economic genius, the market doesn't agree. So the government has to change tack. As Keynes is famously attributed to have said, "the market can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent".
There is an easy fix. The government should request 45 pence from every rich person. And bankers should be forced to wear caps at work.
does that mean if russia is continuing the war they are attacking nato then...thats ww3
I think the intention is that Ukraine will have the same sort of protection that Sweden and Finland currently do. As an applicant there will be a series of multilateral security agreements.
So if occupied Ukraine is "Russia", unoccupied Ukraine is de facto NATO or as near as dammit.
Apparently there are going to be some big announcements this evening.
If the UK is providing security guarantees to Ukraine, while it's at war, I'd expect an address to the nation from Truss this evening.
An interesting moment. To what extent would voters compartmentalise their contempt for Truss over the budget from their instinctive support for Ukraine?
instinctive support for Ukraine is not the same as risking death and bombs raining on the UK for it
Yes. Which is why a message from the country's leadership is important at a time like this. Will the public give Truss a fair hearing on a different topic, or will they recoil?
Unless I’ve missed something there’s been no significant development other than Ukraines application for a fast track membership of NATO. Presumably that application now needs to be considered, so there are no security guarantees as yet and therefore no need for la Truss to speak to the nation?
Although if we’re expecting her to give any kind of speech of that nature you can bet your bottom dollar it will be the least reassuring thing ever. “Some of you may die, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”
Finland and Sweden received security guarantees before they applied to join NATO. If NATO doesn't immediately rebuff Ukraine's application then I'd expect some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine before the end of the day.
Logically then Russia is given a deadline by which to stop firing and to withdraw from Ukrainian territory.
Surely Nato isn't going to give security guarantees to a country already at war with Russia
Slight issues in this thread are:
a) UK has not given security guarantees to Ukraine (unless something happened I do not know about). b) NATO does not accept countries with border conflicts.
Even if the mini-budget were a work of economic genius, the market doesn't agree. So the government has to change tack. As Keynes is famously attributed to have said, "the market can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent".
Truss doesn't agree with you.
And she thinks she is right.
She thinks she can remain irrational much longer than you and I can remain solvent...
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Casablanca southwards should be OK. Has the advantage of being cheap too.
The same CBI whose director general Tony Danker said in a Treasury press release after the mini-budget: "This is a turning point for our economy. Today is day one of a new UK growth approach."
I get criticised if I post too few (cherry-picking). I get criticised if I post too many (bloody jocks).
Hopefully get some proper polls around the SC decision.
Fundamental methodological error: never measure at or around an “event”. Regular, say monthly, polls are your friend. Scotland used to have two (System Three and ? I forget the other, ICM? courtesy of G Herald and Scotsman) until the rise of the SNP. Odd coincidence that they disappeared about then 😉
2010-ish? Yes, that was about when the Scotsman and then GH stopped being decent middle of the road broadsheets anyway, which didn't help.
Does house insurance usually protect you in instances of nuclear war?
Asking for a friend.
Three problems. A living policyholder. An insurance company that hasn’t been annihilated. Insurance companies’ small print.
What kind of event or action is sufficient, do you think, to trigger a sensible evacuation of one’s family to the countryside or even New Zealand?
Asking for another friend.
In the event of a strategic nuclear exchange there's no point in running. Anywhere that's not obliterated by a thermonuclear blast will simply be irradiated by fallout, then starved and frozen to death in a nuclear winter.
Besides which, Putin is psychotic, genocidal scum and so are all the people around him. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they decided to nuke as wide a range of targets as possible in their zeal to take the entire world down with them. New Zealand is, therefore, probably on their "let's kill the whole planet" list anyway.
thats why south america is safer...i thought about new zealand but thought the chinese may just decide to invade them in the chaos....so argentina or chile for me
In Cold War times, wasn't New Zealand's nuclear free policy regarded with extreme suspicion in the Kremlin? Thus they targeted it pretty heavily.
More space in Australia (and they've, ahem, seen the odd bomb go off already).
I'm on a flight to Australia 10th October, if armageddon can wait till the 11th, that would be super.
If it happens on the 9th, will you go Round the Bend?
does that mean if russia is continuing the war they are attacking nato then...thats ww3
I think the intention is that Ukraine will have the same sort of protection that Sweden and Finland currently do. As an applicant there will be a series of multilateral security agreements.
So if occupied Ukraine is "Russia", unoccupied Ukraine is de facto NATO or as near as dammit.
Apparently there are going to be some big announcements this evening.
If the UK is providing security guarantees to Ukraine, while it's at war, I'd expect an address to the nation from Truss this evening.
An interesting moment. To what extent would voters compartmentalise their contempt for Truss over the budget from their instinctive support for Ukraine?
instinctive support for Ukraine is not the same as risking death and bombs raining on the UK for it
Yes. Which is why a message from the country's leadership is important at a time like this. Will the public give Truss a fair hearing on a different topic, or will they recoil?
Unless I’ve missed something there’s been no significant development other than Ukraines application for a fast track membership of NATO. Presumably that application now needs to be considered, so there are no security guarantees as yet and therefore no need for la Truss to speak to the nation?
Although if we’re expecting her to give any kind of speech of that nature you can bet your bottom dollar it will be the least reassuring thing ever. “Some of you may die, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”
Finland and Sweden received security guarantees before they applied to join NATO. If NATO doesn't immediately rebuff Ukraine's application then I'd expect some sort of security guarantee for Ukraine before the end of the day.
Logically then Russia is given a deadline by which to stop firing and to withdraw from Ukrainian territory.
Surely Nato isn't going to give security guarantees to a country already at war with Russia
Slight issues in this thread are:
a) UK has not given security guarantees to Ukraine (unless something happened I do not know about). b) NATO does not accept countries with border conflicts.
In 1955 the Federal Republic of Germany joined NATO, even though more than a third of Germany remained under Soviet occupation. The UK has already given a security guarantee to Ukraine: the Budapest Memorandum.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I think you're pissing into the radioactive wind.
If I wanted to live in the remnants of our civilisation. I'd go and eat puffins on the Western Isles.
The torrential rain will wash a lot of the radioactive fallout away. Good call.
Sadly I can’t speak Russian. What’s that they’re singing? Is it “Whistle a Happy Tune” from the King and I?
Look at the streets around them in the long shots. It's a couple of pens for a few thousand people bussed in for the regime. This in a city of 12m people.
The BBC certainly showed clips and it is obviously a much smaller crowd then Russian propaganda would have you believe
Perhaps Mad Vlad's good buddy the Sage > Security Risk of Mar-a-Lardo can lend him a hand, via 45's own proven "fuzzy math" re: crowd "estimates"?
The irony is that, if the USA was at present *enjoying* President Trump's 2nd term, we'd probably be at less risk of going to all out war and global death. Coz Trump would have said Sure, have Ukraine, & Putin would have taken half of Ukraine, end of story
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
Ideally we hang on til Wednesday for Armageddon because I've got La Dame de Pic on Tuesday.
Could we make it Thursday, please? Meeting a friend for lunch on Wednesday.
Oh jeez are we putting our bids in. Mon/Tues I'm in Paris; Thurs I have a drinks, then Friday off for the weekend.
So I have a window I suppose on Weds but if people are busy that night then I'm happy to bump it to next week.
What about my cunningly delayed house move?
We have an ideal diversion planned for Monday. We're off to hear Max Hastings talk about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Should be good though. Very interesting and very topical. Not to succumb to hyperbolic doomcasting - as if - but this does look a slightly precarious situation. Putin is attempting nuclear blackmail and at same time giving America no choice but to not give in to it. What a bad mad man.
NEW: I understand “multiple” Conservative MPs are in talks with Labour in Parliament to defeat elements of the “mini-budget. Particular focus on 45p rate. Focus is on sending a signal to markets.
Then you realise ... the 'supply side measures' that need to be 'delivered' with the '80 seat majority' are just made up on the hoof and have no content or substance. 'Investment zones' are just the another variation of 'freeports' and prior to that, 'enterprise zones'. Its just the same nonsense. If you want to cut public spending, you have to cut welfare and health spending. Not creating obscure new tax loopholes that have all sorts of peverse consequences in other parts of the economy. The 'Tory MP' quoted above is correct. I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe that these people have a plan to 'take the hard decisions' to 'save the British economy'.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Honestly can’t say what I’d do. I live in an urban area so it’s entirely plausible I’d say put and take my chances (which wouldn’t be great, in all likelihood). Have a few relatives dotted about in semi-rural areas, they’d be options too potentially, though don’t suspect the aftermath of a global nuclear war would be much fun anyway so I’m not sure I can really get too far ahead of myself in thinking of hopeful escapes.
Then you realise ... the 'supply side measures' that need to be 'delivered' with the '80 seat majority' are just made up on the hoof and have no content or substance. 'Investment zones' are just the another variation of 'freeports' and prior to that, 'enterprise zones'. Its just the same nonsense. If you want to cut public spending, you have to cut welfare and health spending. Not creating obscure new tax loopholes that have all sorts of peverse consequences in other parts of the economy. The 'Tory MP' quoted above is correct. I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe that these people have a plan to 'take the hard decisions' to 'save the British economy'.
Perhaps the "Investment Zones" are rather better known as "Marginal Tory Seats"?
For the poster(s) criticising what we have been doing in Ukraine: what would you do differently now? What would you have done differently back in late February?
I get criticised if I post too few (cherry-picking). I get criticised if I post too many (bloody jocks).
Hopefully get some proper polls around the SC decision.
Fundamental methodological error: never measure at or around an “event”. Regular, say monthly, polls are your friend. Scotland used to have two (System Three and ? I forget the other, ICM? courtesy of G Herald and Scotsman) until the rise of the SNP. Odd coincidence that they disappeared about then 😉
2010-ish? Yes, that was about when the Scotsman and then GH stopped being decent middle of the road broadsheets anyway, which didn't help.
Scotland needs a national media. National polling companies. And a national government.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
I get criticised if I post too few (cherry-picking). I get criticised if I post too many (bloody jocks).
Hopefully get some proper polls around the SC decision.
Fundamental methodological error: never measure at or around an “event”. Regular, say monthly, polls are your friend. Scotland used to have two (System Three and ? I forget the other, ICM? courtesy of G Herald and Scotsman) until the rise of the SNP. Odd coincidence that they disappeared about then 😉
2010-ish? Yes, that was about when the Scotsman and then GH stopped being decent middle of the road broadsheets anyway, which didn't help.
Scotland needs a national media. National polling companies. And a national government.
Indeed yes. The lack of the last while the SNP screw everything up handing out gazillions in illegal contracts to their mates is a definite blot on Scotland's prospects.
For the poster(s) criticising what we have been doing in Ukraine: what would you do differently now? What would you have done differently back in late February?
With most of them, either (a) surrender to the Russians at once or (b) arm the Russians in exchange for cheap gas.
Then you realise ... the 'supply side measures' that need to be 'delivered' with the '80 seat majority' are just made up on the hoof and have no content or substance. 'Investment zones' are just the another variation of 'freeports' and prior to that, 'enterprise zones'. Its just the same nonsense. If you want to cut public spending, you have to cut welfare and health spending. Not creating obscure new tax loopholes that have all sorts of peverse consequences in other parts of the economy. The 'Tory MP' quoted above is correct. I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe that these people have a plan to 'take the hard decisions' to 'save the British economy'.
Perhaps the "Investment Zones" are rather better known as "Marginal Tory Seats"?
On the basis of the recent polling, that would be pretty much all the seats they currently hold.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
"There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty."
This is an economic crisis made in Downing Street. More unfunded borrowing in investment zones will cause risk and uncertainty, fueling market chaos and leaving working people paying the price. We can’t afford any more reckless Tory economics.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
I think it is going to be more than a decade, and that is not great for democracy.
Agreed, but the Tories should probably have thought of that before sticking two fingers up to the voting public.
(Obviously some counting of chickens before they hatch is going on here.)
Sadly they (meaning the post 2016 incarnations of the leadership*) have been doing that for a while. It is called populism, and it starts by them sticking two fingers up at people they think don't matter, and before they realise it the only people they are not sticking two fingers up at are themselves.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I think you're pissing into the radioactive wind.
If I wanted to live in the remnants of our civilisation. I'd go and eat puffins on the Western Isles.
The torrential rain will wash a lot of the radioactive fallout away. Good call.
Infinite supply of iodine rich kelp and all the sea birds a man can desire.
Care to join me for tern a l'bladder rack this Christmas?
Cut my taxes but not the rich guy. Yes please. But no follow up on whether you'd still be in favour if it meant mortgage rises, house price falls, public service cuts.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
I mean their air force might actually be out in the Irish Sea searching for NATO kit (as will ours, in the oppoite way, of course)
TBH I don't think anywhere in Europe or anywhere near to Europe would escape this, so that rules out Morocco and Ireland
Australia it is, but when and how, as @TimS says? What is the trigger to run away?
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
I think it is going to be more than a decade, and that is not great for democracy.
No, it isn't.
She has to be stopped. She's trashing her Party as well as the country. She has to be removed, immediately. A caretaker PM can be installed to serve until the election. A sensible Chancellor, probably Sunak, can run the economy unfettered. That won't be fun, but it will be survivable.
Obviously this leads to electoral carnage at the GE but the seeds of regeneration will be there. Even they will be destroyed if the Party dithers.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
Yes to be honest you’re probably best in some respects staying put in the UK. Yes we’d take a lot of hits but you have ID and a passport and an address (destroyed or no) and a social security record. If there is some functioning government or central authority you probably stand a better chance of getting whatever assistance can be provided.
I think it is going to be more than a decade, and that is not great for democracy.
No, it isn't.
She has to be stopped. She's trashing her Party as well as the country. She has to be removed, immediately. A caretaker PM can be installed to serve until the election. A sensible Chancellor, probably Sunak, can run the economy unfettered. That won't be fun, but it will be survivable.
Obviously this leads to electoral carnage at the GE but the seeds of regeneration will be there. Even they will be destroyed if the Party dithers.
They need to defeat her in the Commons.
Common sense won't work. Logic, reason; useless. Cataclysmic polling, irrelevant.
Total meltdown of the UK economy, not important.
They will have to vote down every single batshit measure she proposes.
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
Did you do this as a kind of joke, or intellectual puzzle? Or did you approach it with serious intent?
Not a hostile question. I am genuinely intrigued by the different reactions to this
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
Ireland is at minimal risk of fallout unless theres an east or north wind blowing, so just hunker down for 3 to 4 weeks and then any risk would be down to being unlucky/increased cancer risks. Fallout might remain in the atmosphere for up to 5 years but not at lethal levels in and of itself, its that first month you need to keep bulk between you and the atmosphere. In good old Blighty there will be immeduate areas that remain lethal long term but avoid them and after a few weeks you can look forward to the brave new world
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
This is Q-Anon level stuff. You might as well imply that the Federal Reserve is secretly working for Russia by hiking rates so quickly and creating market dislocations around the world.
This is an economic crisis made in Downing Street. More unfunded borrowing in investment zones will cause risk and uncertainty, fueling market chaos and leaving working people paying the price. We can’t afford any more reckless Tory economics.
This is so stupid. It is exhausting. Liz Truss seems to have a basic lack of knowledge about how the world works. Governments require TAX to function. She is basically arguing for a policy of unlimited domestic tax havens. Tax havens, everywhere. So where does the government get tax from in this new world? Perhaps that is just an irritating matter of annoying detail that can be worked out 'down the line'.
They go on about stripping back planning as well, but that is a total red herring, for all the reasons explained by Zack Simons here, someone who really knows his stuff being a top planning barrister.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Isn't that the reason for a possible NATO announcement of some protection for Ukraine. A message like this:
Gay Horse Riding Mad Vlad any Nuclear explosion in Ukraine and you personally are toast, your infrastructure is toast, your army and navy are toast. NATO will decimate you.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
Doesn't have much water though, does it?
Hmm. Probably not in the summer. Are their desalination plants solar/wind powered or do they rely on oil?
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
You’ve got to hope that someone somewhere is going to still be in a position to ship food in, because once the stocks run out what happens then?
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
Yes to be honest you’re probably best in some respects staying put in the UK. Yes we’d take a lot of hits but you have ID and a passport and an address (destroyed or no) and a social security record. If there is some functioning government or central authority you probably stand a better chance of getting whatever assistance can be provided.
Precisely. The worst places to be will be London, Devonport, Portsmouth, near Fylingdales, Holy Loch, Faslane, upwind from the bigger air bases, tee and tyneside, midlands industrial belt, cheltenham There arent really enough nukes on standby for them to hit more than that lot (its enough!), most of Russias arsenal is aimed to taking out the US.
Sadly I can’t speak Russian. What’s that they’re singing? Is it “Whistle a Happy Tune” from the King and I?
Look at the streets around them in the long shots. It's a couple of pens for a few thousand people bussed in for the regime. This in a city of 12m people.
The BBC certainly showed clips and it is obviously a much smaller crowd then Russian propaganda would have you believe
A Potemkin crowd for a Potemkin Hitler. The whole country is now more or less an empty theatre, and the hall of war criminals watching the farcial proceedings already knew that. In good Scots we´d call it a toom tabard on a shoogly peg.
"We must defend Russian culture from western colonialist hegemony"
*sings ripoff of a TikTok sea shanty meme from two years ago*
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
Did you do this as a kind of joke, or intellectual puzzle? Or did you approach it with serious intent?
Not a hostile question. I am genuinely intrigued by the different reactions to this
Serious intent. It only took a couple of hours on a rainy Saturday.
Going to dust it down now the stakes have been upped again.
I still think a nuclear exchange would be more geographically contained than outright global conflagration, hence the focus on short haul.
Getting the children out of school though, and explaining to the head. I mean I don’t mind the £60 fine but being told off by Trish the school secretary is quite a frightening prospect.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
"There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty."
Such as?
Any air fight between NATO and Russia. 95% the war goes nuclear if so. This is possible around Lyman.
Ukraine in NATO leads to the above.
Arguably any direct NATO involvement in fighting inside any of the 5 territories.
More like 50% (or at least there might be a week or so in which to act) if
- Russia issues an ultimatum against encircling forces around Lyman - there are NordStream-type attacks on western installations (not necessarily energy-related) even if they are supposed to be by perpetrators unknown - surprise events such as assassinations
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
I mean their air force might actually be out in the Irish Sea searching for NATO kit (as will ours, in the oppoite way, of course)
TBH I don't think anywhere in Europe or anywhere near to Europe would escape this, so that rules out Morocco and Ireland
Australia it is, but when and how, as @TimS says? What is the trigger to run away?
Russian air force wont make it over, its shit, NATO would utterly crush them for air superiority i think in pretty short order Scottish West Coast fishing villages are the place to be in the UK As for triggers, tricky, you may well find the point you should go is just after they stop international travel
NYT ($) DeSantis, Once a ‘No’ on Storm Aid, Petitions a President He’s Bashed The Florida governor, who as a congressman opposed aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy, is seeking relief from the Biden administration as Hurricane Ian ravages his own state.
As a freshman congressman in 2013, Ron DeSantis was unambiguous: A federal bailout for the New York region after Hurricane Sandy was an irresponsible boondoggle, a symbol of the “put it on the credit card mentality” he had come to Washington to oppose.
“I sympathize with the victims,” he said. But his answer was no.
Nearly a decade later, as his state confronts the devastation and costly destruction wrought by Hurricane Ian, Mr. DeSantis is appealing to the nation’s better angels — and betting on its short memory.
“As you say, Tucker, we live in a very politicized time,” Mr. DeSantis, now Florida’s governor, told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, outlining his request for full federal reimbursement up front for 60 days and urging the Biden administration to do the right thing. “But you know, when people are fighting for their lives, when their whole livelihood is at stake, when they’ve lost everything — if you can’t put politics aside for that, then you’re just not going to be able to.”
SSI - Two Fuckers doing what they do best: bull-shitting.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
As luck would have it I am just looking at my insurance policy.
There is no cover for:
10) War, terrorism, radioactive contamination and pressure waves Any claim resulting directly or indirectly from or in connection with: a) war, terrorism, invasion, act of foreign enemy, hostilities or warlike operations (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, uprising, military or usurped power; b) ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel or any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel; c) the radioactive, toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of it; d) pressure waves caused by aircraft or other aerial devices travelling at sonic or supersonic speed.
It's against the rules of Lloyd's and I assume also the companies market to write land based war risks.
You can buy war-on-land coverage. Just not in a current war zone.
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
A Scottish Nationalist?
Yes. Like Frankie Boyle
They are lost in some dreamworld like we are still living in 1996 and enjoying some "peace dividend" and we can give up our nukes and Putin will see the light. FFS
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
Yes to be honest you’re probably best in some respects staying put in the UK. Yes we’d take a lot of hits but you have ID and a passport and an address (destroyed or no) and a social security record. If there is some functioning government or central authority you probably stand a better chance of getting whatever assistance can be provided.
Precisely. The worst places to be will be London, Devonport, Portsmouth, near Fylingdales, Holy Loch, Faslane, upwind from the bigger air bases, tee and tyneside, midlands industrial belt, cheltenham There arent really enough nukes on standby for them to hit more than that lot (its enough!), most of Russias arsenal is aimed to taking out the US.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
How did you weight the variables?
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout? Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements. I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands. There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
I had 3 types of weighting: ones that would rule a country out altogether (like visa requirement or flying over war zone), some nice to haves with low scores (like cost of living) and other more important ones that were weighted twice as much (ease of getting there and back).
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
What about Tenerife? Can't see it being on the target list.
Doesn't have much water though, does it?
It had a lot earlier this week - just after I left thank goodness.
Does anyone else find it (at least) odd, that a UK government would go out of it's way (according to it's own narrative) to exacerbate a fiscal crisis, smack dab in the middle of a hot European war, involving MAJOR threats (putting it mildly) to the UK and the world?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
This is Q-Anon level stuff. You might as well imply that the Federal Reserve is secretly working for Russia by hiking rates so quickly and creating market dislocations around the world.
You seem quite defensive. More so than persuasive. As per your recent postings.
Current HMG (BoJo & Bojo Lite) IS on record has having granted peerage to at least on security risk, is it not?
And ever hear of Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, just to name a few fellow security risks who managed to become quite influential in government circles of their time & place?
In which Frankie Boyle demonstrates that he still doesn't understand deterrence
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
Do you feel safer from homeland attack here than you would in Spain?
Yes. Also safer than Germany, Holland, Poland, Baltics, etc
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
North Morocco will surely suffer from radiation and fall out, there's a lot of NATO stuff just across the Med. And Gibraltar is likely to be one of the first places to be vaped
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
Foreign nationals will be in camps in short order everywhere in the aftermath of a large scale exchange as crumbling governments seek to maintain order and feed their own, there wont be a freedom of movement thang. I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size. Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
Yes to be honest you’re probably best in some respects staying put in the UK. Yes we’d take a lot of hits but you have ID and a passport and an address (destroyed or no) and a social security record. If there is some functioning government or central authority you probably stand a better chance of getting whatever assistance can be provided.
Precisely. The worst places to be will be London, Devonport, Portsmouth, near Fylingdales, Holy Loch, Faslane, upwind from the bigger air bases, tee and tyneside, midlands industrial belt, cheltenham There arent really enough nukes on standby for them to hit more than that lot (its enough!), most of Russias arsenal is aimed to taking out the US.
Back in February at the start of the war I ran a location assessment to work out where to go in the event nuclear war looked likely, and what the trigger would be.
For the trigger, unless your job and family situation allows, it’s not feasible to go very early and sit it out in a far flung location. We need to late enough that we’re not blowing our children’s schooling or my job.
But leave it too late and you’re in the rush with millions of others and might struggle to make it out. Our current trigger is detonation of a tactical nuke by Putin.
Location wise I followed the scorecard approach I take at work when I’m advising multinationals on where to put a new operation. Variables were speed and cost to get there and back, Covid and visa entry requirements, number of flights per week, agricultural self sufficiency, cost and standard of living, distance from blast and fallout, and avoiding flight paths over potential targets.
Narrowed it down to Morocco or Ireland. Asia involved flying over CIS and E Europe and was too restrictive on entry requirements. S America also too difficult with visas and Covid rules for a quick getaway, and expensive to get to and back.
Morocco was first choice. I think on balance it still is, but Ireland still in the running.
I'd not survive long anyway, because... medical supplies.
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Trouble is, an awful lot of well-informed people on social media and elsewhere think Putin might not be bluffing. The short-arse Russian is in deep shit, and also pretty crazy now
Who are these people? With all respect Leon you aren't averse to hysteria and I'm sure there are a fair few people making a living from spreading it.
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.
Comments
Avoid the trolling bit and, Russian or not, you'll be fine here.
What an, erm, charming little ditty.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1575889960087203840
If I wanted to live in the remnants of our civilisation. I'd go and eat puffins on the Western Isles.
24% in LDI/cash !!!!
Used to be 50% stocks, 25% in both bonds and gilts.
Ireland surely the same. One easterly wind (and they do happen) and they get the fall out from the UK, plus the Russians will be landing bombs all over the Irish Sea looking for UK subs and boats
Southern Morocco maybe. Essaouira?
🔴 CBI criticised the Chancellor for announcing tax cuts without explaining how they would be paid for
✍️ @HugoGye and @janemerrick23 https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cbi-business-chiefs-liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng-debt-credibility-stability-1888013?ito=social_itw_theipaper&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1664551198
The same CBI whose director general Tony Danker said in a Treasury press release after the mini-budget: "This is a turning point for our economy. Today is day one of a new UK growth approach."
That CBI? https://twitter.com/theipaper/status/1575869500133629952
There is an easy fix. The government should request 45 pence from every rich person. And bankers should be forced to wear caps at work.
a) UK has not given security guarantees to Ukraine (unless something happened I do not know about).
b) NATO does not accept countries with border conflicts.
And she thinks she is right.
She thinks she can remain irrational much longer than you and I can remain solvent...
As stjohn says, even if it were a good idea, the market doesn't agree, and that's significant.
Yield up 1.29 percentage points at Friday's close. https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1575882172963004416/photo/1
Similar (indeed nearly identical) to similar change by Trussed-Up PBers in past days.
Gee, wonder why?
So, we'd sit here in rural Dorset and drink our best wine first, until fall-out, starvation, marauding refugees from the cities, or the end of said medical supplies finished us off.
But cheer up - it's not going to happen. Putin's bluffing.
Ireland is great for proximity, but fallout?
Much of S and C America would be fine for entry requirements.
I recently learnt that Colombia has some English-speaking islands.
There are some pre-nuclear possibilities that would make nuclear escalation a racing certainty.
Only takes around 35 Tories to rebel for defeat.
More on my @lbc show shortly
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1575894055636160515
'Investment zones' are just the another variation of 'freeports' and prior to that, 'enterprise zones'.
Its just the same nonsense.
If you want to cut public spending, you have to cut welfare and health spending. Not creating obscure new tax loopholes that have all sorts of peverse consequences in other parts of the economy. The 'Tory MP' quoted above is correct.
I don't understand how anyone can seriously believe that these people have a plan to 'take the hard decisions' to 'save the British economy'.
Ignore the hype: Keir Starmer remains unelectable
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/30/ignore-hype-keir-starmer-remains-unelectable/ @CamillaTominey
Such as?
(Obviously some counting of chickens before they hatch is going on here.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/30/liz-truss-to-push-ahead-with-unlimited-investment-zones-despite-costs-row?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs
I dispute Russia will be landing bombs in the Irish sea, they havent got the numbers, they need most of their ICBMs and sub launched stuff for the normal targets and their truck launched won't reach, plus the initial exchange will wipe out any further exchanges of any size.
Britain would take maybe 10 to 20 strikes in a full exchange (if the Russian arsenal isnt rusted away to shit in the main)
*this word used advisedly
I’d rather not go intercontinental if possible as it’s that much trickier to come back if it’s all a false alarm.
Ireland would rely on westerlies. Would need to take heed of the medium term forecast. Also need to be far enough from Northern Ireland and Shannon airport.
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1575853684852150272
Care to join me for tern a l'bladder rack this Christmas?
TBH I don't think anywhere in Europe or anywhere near to Europe would escape this, so that rules out Morocco and Ireland
Australia it is, but when and how, as @TimS says? What is the trigger to run away?
I mean, WHO stands to benefit from pouring gasoline onto the burning building? The fire fighers - or the arsonist?
She has to be stopped. She's trashing her Party as well as the country. She has to be removed, immediately. A caretaker PM can be installed to serve until the election. A sensible Chancellor, probably Sunak, can run the economy unfettered. That won't be fun, but it will be survivable.
Obviously this leads to electoral carnage at the GE but the seeds of regeneration will be there. Even they will be destroyed if the Party dithers.
Common sense won't work. Logic, reason; useless. Cataclysmic polling, irrelevant.
Total meltdown of the UK economy, not important.
They will have to vote down every single batshit measure she proposes.
Then VONC her.
Not a hostile question. I am genuinely intrigued by the different reactions to this
"Amazing that no matter how bad things get, scrapping Trident is just never mentioned. A non issue across the political spectrum. The genius of placing it in Scotland, whose Unpeople may sadly have to be consumed by incendiary light, while more important matters are debated"
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/1575896652313153537?s=20&t=e-c9feUhLwyd5N3H1MCCqw
Liz Truss seems to have a basic lack of knowledge about how the world works.
Governments require TAX to function. She is basically arguing for a policy of unlimited domestic tax havens. Tax havens, everywhere.
So where does the government get tax from in this new world? Perhaps that is just an irritating matter of annoying detail that can be worked out 'down the line'.
They go on about stripping back planning as well, but that is a total red herring, for all the reasons explained by Zack Simons here, someone who really knows his stuff being a top planning barrister.
https://www.planoraks.com/posts-1/investment-zones
I am seriously wondering if we are living through the complete breakdown of government.
Gay Horse Riding Mad Vlad any Nuclear explosion in Ukraine and you personally are toast, your infrastructure is toast, your army and navy are toast. NATO will decimate you.
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1575419240592580608
There arent really enough nukes on standby for them to hit more than that lot (its enough!), most of Russias arsenal is aimed to taking out the US.
She only left out the Illumnati, aliens and the Freemasons ...
*sings ripoff of a TikTok sea shanty meme from two years ago*
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1575868888327524352
Going to dust it down now the stakes have been upped again.
I still think a nuclear exchange would be more geographically contained than outright global conflagration, hence the focus on short haul.
Getting the children out of school though, and explaining to the head. I mean I don’t mind the £60 fine but being told off by Trish the school secretary is quite a frightening prospect.
Ukraine in NATO leads to the above.
Arguably any direct NATO involvement in fighting inside any of the 5 territories.
More like 50% (or at least there might be a week or so in which to act) if
- Russia issues an ultimatum against encircling forces around Lyman
- there are NordStream-type attacks on western installations (not necessarily energy-related) even if they are supposed to be by perpetrators unknown
- surprise events such as assassinations
Where do they get these people?
Scottish West Coast fishing villages are the place to be in the UK
As for triggers, tricky, you may well find the point you should go is just after they stop international travel
NYT ($) DeSantis, Once a ‘No’ on Storm Aid, Petitions a President He’s Bashed
The Florida governor, who as a congressman opposed aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy, is seeking relief from the Biden administration as Hurricane Ian ravages his own state.
As a freshman congressman in 2013, Ron DeSantis was unambiguous: A federal bailout for the New York region after Hurricane Sandy was an irresponsible boondoggle, a symbol of the “put it on the credit card mentality” he had come to Washington to oppose.
“I sympathize with the victims,” he said. But his answer was no.
Nearly a decade later, as his state confronts the devastation and costly destruction wrought by Hurricane Ian, Mr. DeSantis is appealing to the nation’s better angels — and betting on its short memory.
“As you say, Tucker, we live in a very politicized time,” Mr. DeSantis, now Florida’s governor, told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, outlining his request for full federal reimbursement up front for 60 days and urging the Biden administration to do the right thing. “But you know, when people are fighting for their lives, when their whole livelihood is at stake, when they’ve lost everything — if you can’t put politics aside for that, then you’re just not going to be able to.”
SSI - Two Fuckers doing what they do best: bull-shitting.
eg There is a chance Putin will drop one strategic warhead to show he REALLY means it (I've seen this discussed by experts). Probably on a major western European nation
Britain and France would be tempting targets, because they are rich, high profile and hostile to Russia, but they both have nukes. They will probably retaliate and smoke Moscow and St Petersburg and a few other cities. Catastrophe for Putin
So Putin would choose somewhere else. So deterrence works
We know this because Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes. No one has tried to destroy Israel - because Israel has nukes. Ditto North Korea. And so on
Nukes work. They deter. What fool would now unilaterally get rid of Trident, after all that we have seen?
They need to be removed before they do any further damage .
They are lost in some dreamworld like we are still living in 1996 and enjoying some "peace dividend" and we can give up our nukes and Putin will see the light. FFS
Current HMG (BoJo & Bojo Lite) IS on record has having granted peerage to at least on security risk, is it not?
And ever hear of Alger Hiss and Kim Philby, just to name a few fellow security risks who managed to become quite influential in government circles of their time & place?
I'm strangely relaxed about the prospect of armageddon. As a single man I'm probably quite expendable and prepared to take the risk of staring down Mr Putin. I do have nieces and nephews though which gives me pause for thought.
As for locations, have you considered Penarth? It's raining cats and dogs down this way but you'd be safe for a while at least unless Vlad drops the big one on Wales.