Issues arising from Brexit may not be done, so its semantics. That's not a criticism of Brexit, it's just a consequence of any change having lasting impacts.
The government certainly says it's not done when they want a distraction.
And we should believe what the government says - why, exactly?
Point being they are happy to claim it's not done when they want, so cannot complain if others day it's not done.
And as I note its semantic anyway, it has happened but there are follow up issues, so quibbling about done or not done is meaningless.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
It's not NATO territory now yet NATO has been willing to provide some support at least. Are you suggesting use of a nuke would have no impact on their considerations of what to do?
That seems to fly in the face of the evidence of current involvement, however limited.
It should lead to a blockade and complete isolation of Putin but not WW3 unless a NATO state is directly attacked
There is already a blockade and complete isolation of Putin.
Why would you want to allow him to escalate to a nuclear conflict. Nuclear escalation is in nobodies interests and prevention is better than cure here.
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
Not sure why Russia would nuke Kherson - it has 25 of their finest* battle groups there....
*or what passes for them these days.
That's completely in line with the quality of work deported by the Russian military at the moment, to be fair. Nuking their own major supply base, and reserves would be exactly in their wheelhouse...
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
You keep on being you, Bart. And you know what? We would probably win on paper.
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Why would our Tory government not make use of the soft power afforded by the Monarchy to push forward much needed action on Climate Change, unless they were ambivalent about it themselves?
Maybe a new Prime Minister needs to not be upstaged?
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.
Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.
Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss
The tone of your posts recently suggests you are quite keen on Sir Keir as PM.
Are you considering a change in loyalties?
(P.S. I have noted your absolute consistency over Truss' appointment, which rather makes a fool of those of us who claimed you would unthinkingly support whoever was Tory leader)
Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.
Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.
In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).
So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.
Hurrah.
Another development is that the Government, which initially deemed all EU regulation to be still in force (with a change from "responsible to the EU" to "responsible to the UK Government", unless amended/abolished. At the end of 2023, this will flip - all regulations not explicitly transposed will cease to be valid.
While one can understand the logic, most regulations are in fact seen by the Government as uncontentious (e.g. rules on the meaning of shipping lights at sea), so what this will primarily do is require the preparation and discussion in Committee of more than 300 Statutory Instruments, any of which can be moved to discussion in full Parliamentary session by Opposition decision (essentially an SI only goes through by committee if there is no significant opposition). The demands on the Civil Service and MPs (sitting on the SI committees) over the next year will be colossal, slowing down work on substantive new policy.
It doesn't matter to them, if they can get credit for 'completing Brexit'.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
Not sure why Russia would nuke Kherson - it has 25 of their finest* battle groups there....
*or what passes for them these days.
That's completely in line with the quality of work deported by the Russian military at the moment, to be fair. Nuking their own major supply base, and reserves would be exactly in their wheelhouse...
That is some false flag though, even for Moscow...
The age of the tank is passing/passed/already long gone like most of the tanks Russia rolled into Ukraine
According to the Ukrainians it isn't - they are using their tanks for many different tasks. And want more and better tanks.
Rolling a tank along a road, with no support, would result in the destruction of the tank, quite rapidly, from 1916 onwards. The Russians are simply not able to implement tactics that are literally a hundred years old.
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.
Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.
Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Anyone else remember that tank game on BBC computers (may have been something else - whatever we used in 'IT' lessons in the early 90s and were given a few minutes to play at the end of the lesson). Two tanks, one either side of a hill and you had to adjust angle and range to hit the other. Or, sometimes, it was just as successful to blast a tunnel through the hill to directly engage the other tank...
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
I do believe in democracy and I am not standing in the way of a project I disagree with. The question was put to the country, the country made a decision and that is the democratic bit. It is now up those who advocated this to do their part and implement it as they promised they would.
Those Remainers who argued against many of the measures where simply exercising their rights to criticise and argue for what they wanted for the implementation. That is part of democracy too. You might not have liked what they said, but they had a right to be heard too. The debate never stops.
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.
Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.
Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Anyone else remember that tank game on BBC computers (may have been something else - whatever we used in 'IT' lessons in the early 90s and were given a few minutes to play at the end of the lesson). Two tanks, one either side of a hill and you had to adjust angle and range to hit the other. Or, sometimes, it was just as successful to blast a tunnel through the hill to directly engage the other tank...
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
I would keep benefits in line with cost of living for the disabled, very sick and those who cannot work. However not for those able to work who should be seeking paid work
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Why would our Tory government not make use of the soft power afforded by the Monarchy to push forward much needed action on Climate Change, unless they were ambivalent about it themselves?
Maybe a new Prime Minister needs to not be upstaged?
At a climate conference? No one would care. Takes some heat off the government to get a royal to read a woolly platitudinous speech.
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
It's just astonishing how it got put forward as a policy. They either did no focus groups on it - or just ignored them.
It was utterly indefensible on the doorsteps. Worse, it showed they had no political nous whatsoever.
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Voters overall back Charles going to COP 49% to 31%.
Interestingly Labour and LD voters are most supportive. 70% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs think Charles should have been allowed to go.
Looks like Charles could get on better with PM Starmer than PM Truss
The tone of your posts recently suggests you are quite keen on Sir Keir as PM.
Are you considering a change in loyalties?
(P.S. I have noted your absolute consistency over Truss' appointment, which rather makes a fool of those of us who claimed you would unthinkingly support whoever was Tory leader)
No, I am still a Tory just my party is currently led by a libertarian.
Though I certainly have little fear of a Starmer Premiership compared to recent Labour leaders
Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.
Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.
In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).
So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.
Hurrah.
£2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.
But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
Oh dear yourself that was what you were implying. That the proles wouldn't be travelling anywhere.
Plus what about you giving up campaigning or supporting the Cons in 1997? I mean Labour won in a democratic vote, after all.
Or were you not old enough to vote then?
(A) no it wasn't, stop lying.
(B) I've already addressed the 1997 point earlier in the thread, stop trolling and start reading.
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
It is a video game that was posted earlier by one of our most esteemed and sensible posters as evidence of Ukrainian activity. It can happen to the best of us. But it is Twitter so I'm minded to believe it anyway.
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Anyone else remember that tank game on BBC computers (may have been something else - whatever we used in 'IT' lessons in the early 90s and were given a few minutes to play at the end of the lesson). Two tanks, one either side of a hill and you had to adjust angle and range to hit the other. Or, sometimes, it was just as successful to blast a tunnel through the hill to directly engage the other tank...
Not a tank game but that sounds like Worms.
Worms definitely employed that game device, but there was a forerunner on one of the earlier home computers – BBC, Spectrum or Amstrad or the like that was a pair of tanks as the OP suggests.
I'm a republican, who disagrees with monarchy, and doesn't particularly like our system of a gentleman's agreement not to flex the monarchic muscle. But this is a weird thing for the government to be doing also.
I was talking to a friend about how this feels like two legitimacy issues rolled into one - obviously Charles isn't elected, he's King, and that de facto should be legitimising, but also in our system he is kind of supposed to defer to advice from the government. But this government is also new, and going through a legitimacy crisis of its own. Very weird...
Why would our Tory government not make use of the soft power afforded by the Monarchy to push forward much needed action on Climate Change, unless they were ambivalent about it themselves?
Maybe a new Prime Minister needs to not be upstaged?
At a climate conference? No one would care. Takes some heat off the government to get a royal to read a woolly platitudinous speech.
Not if you are feeling a bit insecure as Prime Minister. You need an event to shine.
Although, now more prone to hiding than being in the spotlight. So who knows with this lot.
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Anyone else remember that tank game on BBC computers (may have been something else - whatever we used in 'IT' lessons in the early 90s and were given a few minutes to play at the end of the lesson). Two tanks, one either side of a hill and you had to adjust angle and range to hit the other. Or, sometimes, it was just as successful to blast a tunnel through the hill to directly engage the other tank...
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
It's just astonishing how it got put forward as a policy. They either did no focus groups on it - or just ignored them.
It was utterly indefensible on the doorsteps. Worse, it showed they had no political nous whatsoever.
I get the impression that Liz is so sure she is right that they aren't bothering with focus groups or the results are just being dismissed. Otherwise they would have known straight away that it was a disaster.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
I do believe in democracy and I am not standing in the way of a project I disagree with. The question was put to the country, the country made a decision and that is the democratic bit. It is now up those who advocated this to do their part and implement it as they promised they would.
Those Remainers who argued against many of the measures where simply exercising their rights to criticise and argue for what they wanted for the implementation. That is part of democracy too. You might not have liked what they said, but they had a right to be heard too. The debate never stops.
Sure, they had the legal right to try to overturn the result - but they were wrong and foolish to do so.
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
This has actually happened before. At the start of the SMO we had a video of a multiple Hokum-B shootdown that was furiously wanked over until nothing came out but a drop of watery blood. Turned out it was from ARMA 3.
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
It is video game footage. And is sign of how amazingly good video games have become over the last decade that they can look that realistic.
There is a lot of this false footage going around. Mostly it has been of air combat as that is easier to make look real to the untrained eye but there is plenty of anti-tank stuff being passed off as real as well.
YouGov are running a live poll on whether there should be an election .
Likely that those who want one want to get rid of the Tories . It will be interesting to see the final results because currently it’s an absolute shocker for Truss .
Another disastrous interview with Beth Rigby on Sky News.
Truss really is hopeless .
I think we know now why she ducked the Neil interview.
The 1922 should make it a rule that candidates have to do full broadcast interviews with main broadcasters. She would have been found out under pressure and the party would not be in this mess.
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
This has actually happened before. At the start of the SMO we had a video of a multiple Hokum-B shootdown that was furiously wanked over until nothing came out but a drop of watery blood. Turned out it was from ARMA 3.
It's rather good video footage if so. Has a cinema verite quality, complete with the right amount of Ukrainian yelling, grainy twilight and crackling small arms fire
Maybe wars should ONLY be fought with video games. May the country with the best coders win
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
Not sure why Russia would nuke Kherson - it has 25 of their finest* battle groups there....
*or what passes for them these days.
That's completely in line with the quality of work deported by the Russian military at the moment, to be fair. Nuking their own major supply base, and reserves would be exactly in their wheelhouse...
That is some false flag though, even for Moscow...
Seems like there's little military merit in a tactical nuke strike in this war, particularly if Ukraine stay as close as possible to Russian formations. If Russia are intent on defending every town to the end rather than making deep tactical retreats, then they don't really give themselves much space for nuclear engagement. Imagine a nuclear blast (or a few) followed in the next 24 hours by Hazmat-suited Ukrainian battalions continuing to advance through the oblasts.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Absolutely agreed. Include UC Taper and its even worse.
One thing is that the 45p is certainly the wrong end to be worrying about, there's a lot of people who would be much better off if their real tax rate was "only" 45p.
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
Anyone else remember that tank game on BBC computers (may have been something else - whatever we used in 'IT' lessons in the early 90s and were given a few minutes to play at the end of the lesson). Two tanks, one either side of a hill and you had to adjust angle and range to hit the other. Or, sometimes, it was just as successful to blast a tunnel through the hill to directly engage the other tank...
Not a tank game but that sounds like Worms.
Harpoon was fun in the early versions - Sail the USS New Jersey to Moscow and destroy the airfields with the Phalanx point defence guns.....
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
It is video game footage. And is sign of how amazingly good video games have become over the last decade that they can look that realistic.
There is a lot of this false footage going around. Mostly it has been of air combat as that is easier to make look real to the untrained eye but there is plenty of anti-tank stuff being passed off as real as well.
It is astoundingly good. The only thing that made me question it was the missiles. A bit TOO fast and effective. And the way the tanks suddenly reversed
Otherwise, yes, if I had not been told, I would have presumed this was real
This is only going to get worse. Stable Diffusion is apparently gonna make AI videos. They will be 100% convincing. Then what?
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
I have just liked a Dura post, first time for everything!
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
The Ukranians are prepared for winter, and there doesn’t appear to be any appetite for a slowdown in pace, which would indeed help the enemy regroup.
They have supply lines in place, and have been able to restrict the supply depots of the enemy to some way behind their front line - thanks HIMARS!
On the other hand, there are numerous reports of the enemy troops being demoralised and even mutinous, with a lack of supply and spending a long time in the field. Denying the enemy that opportunity to rotate and regroup soldiers, especially as winter descends, should be a huge morale-booster to the defenders. Any conscripts ending up in Ukraine, definitely didn’t sign up for spending the winter camping in a field while being shot at, they’ll lose morale much more quickly than the regular troops.
The Ukrainian flag flies over Davydov Brod in northern Kherson. Formerly a strategic hub for the Russians, there are reports that the Russians are now pulling back south and west en masse. The front is moving at a very fast rate.
Yes, the movement south in Kherson region is now gathering pace, as it did in Kharkiv region a couple of weeks ago.
As someone commented on Twitter under a report of the advances, soon we’ll be seeing a T-72 swimming competition!
There is already footage somewhere of one doing the backstroke - after it fell off a bridge....
Pretty nasty when you consider what would have happened to the crew.
Fully deserving of a 1997 result. I only wish it didn’t take some of the new 2019 intake with them - they could have been the future of the party and they will now all be swept away.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
....
I don't think you understand the this would be about damage limitation. No one thinks Wallace would be a 'saviour' - other than that a change of leadership might avoid complete annihilation at the polls.
As for the cabinet, then almost certainly Sunak as Chancellor - otherwise there'd be another months long debate about policy - and the worst of the Truss appointments replaced by old lags like Gove. In the expectation they'd get on with competently administering a department and get elevated to the Lords at the end of the term.
You might think that fanciful, but it seems less so that expecting any sort of Truss revival.
Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.
Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.
In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).
So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.
Hurrah.
£2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.
But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
Oh dear yourself that was what you were implying. That the proles wouldn't be travelling anywhere.
Plus what about you giving up campaigning or supporting the Cons in 1997? I mean Labour won in a democratic vote, after all.
Or were you not old enough to vote then?
(A) no it wasn't, stop lying.
(B) I've already addressed the 1997 point earlier in the thread, stop trolling and start reading.
I'm liking your "I think I'd better leave it there" approach.
Not hugely surprised a) that I missed your post; or b) that you were too young then. It shows.
So as a would have been Lab voter I presume you are a dyed (edit: been influenced by our own PB poster!) in the wool Cons supporter now and frankly, these past few years, who can blame you.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
Go to nukemap and drop a 100kt (such as could be delivered by a Tochka) tac nuke on Kherson. The fallout doesn't get anywhere near NATO territory.
It's not NATO territory now yet NATO has been willing to provide some support at least. Are you suggesting use of a nuke would have no impact on their considerations of what to do?
That seems to fly in the face of the evidence of current involvement, however limited.
It should lead to a blockade and complete isolation of Putin but not WW3 unless a NATO state is directly attacked
I'm reasonably confident the Chinese would join that blockade (at least "above the line").
Anyway: the Tory party conference. An event so cracked that Michael Gove can credibly turn up to it and act like it’s on drugs. Gove is doing more gigs than Ed Sheeran at the Birmingham gathering, but Truss’s cabinet is already nearing the “separate limos” stage of a monster band’s implosion. Be advised this is a conclave that a huge number of Conservative members of parliament found simply too distasteful to attend. Which certainly puts things into perspective. I’m trying to picture a Star Wars spinoff in which the rebel alliance was run by Gove and Grant Shapps, and it’s possible even Disney+ wouldn’t make it. Which, again, certainly puts things into perspective. Priti Patel is now spoken of as some kind of grandee. Which certainly takes perspective, and does something absolutely unmentionable with it.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I have on occasion been down the "Police audit" wormholes on FB/YT.
Pretty funny/disturbing/cautionary some of the responses. Koleeberks is my auditor of choice.
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
I would keep benefits in line with cost of living for the disabled, very sick and those who cannot work. However not for those able to work who should be seeking paid work
Tricky to do though. Managing that is difficult and there will be lots of falling through the cracks e.g. single mum through no fault of her own, with 3 children, working part time to keep her family together.
Due to the train strikes tomorrow lots of delegates heading back tonight apparently, so Truss may be speaking to a half empty hall
She is not a lucky general.
I'm not too sure luck comes into it. The Trades Union leaders today do not seem to be the superannuated fat cats of a few years ago. Someone will have figured this out.
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I have on occasion been down the "Police audit" wormholes on FB/YT.
Pretty funny/disturbing/cautionary some of the responses. Koleeberks is my auditor of choice.
I've watched some Auditing Britain - but that's in regards to filming in public sort of law, not necessarily questioning people in an investigation potentially pre prosecution.
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
I would keep benefits in line with cost of living for the disabled, very sick and those who cannot work. However not for those able to work who should be seeking paid work
Tricky to do though. Managing that is difficult and there will be lots of falling through the cracks e.g. single mum through no fault of her own, with 3 children, working part time to keep her family together.
She would also get child benefit, a single fit jobseeker wouldn't
I've just found the following article I wrote in 1988 for the Barnes LibDem (then S&LD) local leaflet. Plus ça change.
I wasnt around then, but the point that helping the rich is ok but helping the poor is not remains stark.
Ensuring the poor are better off if they work, and the rich are better off if they work, is consistent though.
The methods are different. You make the poorer even poorer if they don't work (so they are better off if they work). You just make the rich better off.
It would be preferable to incentivise the poor to work by ensuring well paid jobs rather than subsidising employers who pay below living wages.
EDIT: For instance raise the minimum wage and remove Employers NI.
Surprising amount of support from the public on the Vine show just now for Truss increasing benefits in line with earnings not inflation.
Looks like that proposal has gone down much down better than her cut to the 45p top income tax rate did
I don't think that is a surprise, it is what I would expect. People tend to be against benefits being too high and also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
It's just astonishing how it got put forward as a policy. They either did no focus groups on it - or just ignored them.
It was utterly indefensible on the doorsteps. Worse, it showed they had no political nous whatsoever.
I get the impression that Liz is so sure she is right that they aren't bothering with focus groups or the results are just being dismissed. Otherwise they would have known straight away that it was a disaster.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
I find it very strange the selective outrage about police procedure. Yes, this must have been pretty difficult for her, but by all accounts she seems to have been treated civilly by the cops. If she was harassing someone online, that should be investigated, and gathering the information for that would require searching items connected to the internet.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
IANAL but since when can the Police enter a home and seize people's private property without a warrant?
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
I mean, that I agree with, but cops are given broad license for stuff. I know they often argue they don't need a warrant if they are looking for a person and know where that person is / have suspicion that person is in a place, but I too am not a lawyer. Like, I don't trust cops, but on the spectrum of "bad cop experience" this sounds like what we would want most interactions with the police to me?
Well, IF you believe her then that is an absolutely outrageous interaction. To do whatever they did, march her off to the cells, and all on the word apparently of someone else. But they were polite. Jesus H Christ.
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
I’m not convinced there is much attraction in Boris taking the PM job now. If he comes back his chances in the next election might not be great as the damage may already be done. Is Boris the type to want to take over for just 2023 and 2024 and then have to leave again?
Whereas if someone like Wallace takes over now, there’s a scenario where they lead the Tories to a respectable defeat. Perhaps a weaker PM Starmer than looks likely at the moment, with a narrow C+S that could be a bit unstable, such as needing the SNP.
Much more appealing for Boris to take over as LOTO then, claiming that “I’m clearly the only leader who can unite the country” and go into a new GE in 2025/2026 aiming to deliver a big majority again.
Not only is it done it is an absolutely huge waste of time. There is no clearer example of this than travelling on the Eurostar and EU roaming charges.
Queues are now literally round the block and in GdN they have built....an exactly similar set of e-passport gates 10 yards apart one for La France and one for the UK.
In addition it costs now £2/day for EU roaming (£5/day for EU+ roaming).
So absolutely pointless plus costing everyone more money.
Hurrah.
£2 per day? Your network is ripping you off, get a better one. Or get a local SIM card.
All pretty frictionless options vs the status quo ante when I had to....turn on my phone and use it.
If your network doesn't value you as a customer, then you have always had the option to switch.
But remember that "free" roaming is essentially a subsidy of richer customers, who travel more, by poorer customers, who travel less.
Looked like a pretty diverse bunch queuing up at St. Pancras. Are you saying that people from Hartlepool are too dim and stupid to travel to France?
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh dear. Since you're going to make an idiot of yourself, I think I'd better leave it there before you make yourself look even worse.
Oh dear yourself that was what you were implying. That the proles wouldn't be travelling anywhere.
Plus what about you giving up campaigning or supporting the Cons in 1997? I mean Labour won in a democratic vote, after all.
Or were you not old enough to vote then?
(A) no it wasn't, stop lying.
(B) I've already addressed the 1997 point earlier in the thread, stop trolling and start reading.
I'm liking your "I think I'd better leave it there" approach.
Not hugely surprised a) that I missed your post; or b) that you were too young then. It shows.
So as a would have been Lab voter I presume you are a died in the wool Cons supporter now and frankly, these past few years, who can blame you.
If you want to keep embarrassing yourself by lying, I suppose I shouldn't try to stop you.
I'm not a died (or even dyed)-in-the-wool anything supporter. We have elections, and at each of them I choose who to vote for. For the last two elections, that was the Tories, because Corbyn. At the next one, it will probably be Labour, but it does depend on the local candidate - over the last few years (especially over Covid and lockdowns) neither major party has shown itself to be particularly worthy of forming a government, but I suppose we have to have one or the other.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
Catching up I see the trauma the conservative party is suffering continues a pace with Truss refusing to commit to upgrading benefits in line with inflation, as is happening for pensioners, and Penny Mordaunt contradicting her
Eric Pickles on BBC has just said there are more conservative mps who will vote down Truss on this then there were for the 45% rate
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
The other benefit with Truss gone will be the end of Kwarteng political career and that cannot come soon enough
None of this will prevent Starmer winning in 2024 but maybe conservative mps can regain some respect by acting
I have a better idea , conservative mps need to rid themselves of this appalling PM now and coalesce around a single candidate, be it Wallace, Sunak, Hunt, or almost anyone but Johnson, and bring to an end this absurd period
They cannot agree, which is why you ended up with Truss.
Which is why Wallace, as probably the only appointable replacement.
He has recently said he wouldn't rule out standing for the leadership, which is a big change from before. And he's no great threat to anyone when they get around to fighting over the remains of the party after the next election.
Wallace, as the saviour over the sea candidate,
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
Well he has never rebelled in a vote. Which, given the huge variance of party leaders his party have had since he came into Parliament in 2005 doesn't really endear him to me.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
Yes but you are a libertarian so will obviously be more sympathetic to Truss than an alternative leader.
Nope. I was arguing against Truss since the start of the process.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
You Marxists never were great fans of freedom of speech were you.
I'm less concerned about a middle class women being asked questions in a police station, who later tweets through it, versus people protesting police violence against women / young black men being beaten up and hauled away when peacefully protesting.
Correctly, as Boris won a landslide and got Brexit done
Awww, you still think Brexit is "done"
Bless
If Brexit isn't done, how do I contact my MEP?
Brexit is done in as much as we left.
Brexit is not yet done in as much as there is still a lot of work to do to to tidy up the mess it made.
So like Schrodinger's cat, it is both done and not done at the same time.
So Brexit is done. We will be dealing with the EU forever, just like we deal with ~200 countries around the world.
I have never denied that we had left, in fact I always thought I was fairly obvious about that fact and that I also feel it was a bad decision, but it is interesting how you and some other Leavers highlighted that part of my post like you had some desperate need for affirmation that what happened did indeed happen.
If people like Scotty and you who still haven't got over losing a vote over six years ago keep lying about Brexit not being done, then naturally they will get corrected.
I have never denied that we have Brexited but only a fool would believe that the job is finished. Sort out all the border issues, sort out N Ireland, get all the bilateral agreements fixed up, etc, etc.
Your side has a lot to do. Stop bitching and get on with it.
I'm not a politician, but if you want a good solution, you could help rather than bitching and moaning all because you still haven't gotten over losing a vote more than six years ago.
I think it is a colossal mistake. Why would I attempt to implement it?
Because, I assume, you believe in democracy (if you don't, the entire thing is pointless anyway). By setting your face against the democratic decision of the British people, you (and here I mean the plural: former Remainers who refused to accept the decision) have stuck us with a worse solution than if you'd just put your hands up, said "ok, we lost, let's make the most of it" and worked for a solution that would have satisfied most people who voted Remain and most people who voted Leave.
Brexit and the success of its implementation are solely down to those that wanted it. In the real world you can't expect those who always believed it was a stupid idea to dig you out of the hole you have dug for yourselves.
In the real world I expected those who lost to (a) accept that they had lost, (b) not try to overturn the result and, yes, (c) work with moderate Leavers so we didn't get a form of Brexit dictated by the small minority of hardcord Leavers.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
Another good night for Ukraine. Several more towns taken in Kharkiv and Kherson Oblasts, including the key town of Borova in the East.
Ukraine claiming 44 tanks and 27 APCs lost by Russia yesterday. Massive losses.
The tank losses are getting silly now. I think that every tank in Russia, bar a few parade prototypes, is in Ukraine or heading there at the moment. The fall of Kherson will be fun, as there’s going to be a few hundred tanks there with no way out. The Russians appear to have no idea how to wage tank warfare, especially against a modern enemy. Even the recent-model tanks, appear to be seen as expendable.
Came across this article from July, which in part suggests that tanks are being withdrawn from storage and sent to the front without basic checks being made on their readiness. The tank equivalent of sending new conscripts to the front in shorts and flip-flops.
The fact that the Russian army can still fight at all must reflect herculean efforts by some of the front line soldiers. It makes you wonder how much longer they can keep things going.
Good piece. Give it a couple of weeks, and we’ll likely see the new conscripts turn up in shorts and flip flops, just as the snow starts falling.
Do you think Ukraine will be able to keep up their offensive in the winter months or will that freeze the conflict until the spring?
At the moment the Russians rather look like a team that should in theory be doing well like Man Utd getting thrashed in the first half and desperately awaiting the half time whistle so they can go back inside for a break.
Yet also a team which has nuclear missiles ie effectively their star striker is on the bench if they face complete defeat by Ukraine
Nuclear missiles are not a star striker and don't score goals in wars of aggression. They are equivalent to walking off the pitch, not scoring a goal, since the 'game' would be over and Russia would be annihilated by MAD if they were stupid enough to use nukes.
Preventing nuclear escalation means ensuring we respond with our full force if Russia were to attempt it.
Russia could also annihilate NATO with nuclear missiles too however if NATO responded militarily and got involved in a direct war with Russia over Russian actions in Ukraine
They probable couldn't actually.
But that's why NATO haven't got directly involved, but if Russia were to escalate it into a nuclear conflict, which would involve radiation hitting NATO nations, then we would be involved and it would need to be a direct war. Which is why the line has to be drawn for Russia, escalate to nukes and we are involved and you know what that means.
It means we are annihilated in nuclear holocaust as well as most of Russia despite the fact Ukraine is not even in NATO!
Poland is in NATO and a nuclear attack on Ukraine would hit Poland too. 🤦♂️
If Russia choose to start a nuclear holocaust then that's their choice, but they need to be in no doubt that we will take a nuclear strike that hits Poland/Ukraine the same as a nuclear strike that hits London.
Not directly and not worth starting WW3 over unless Russia directly nuked or invaded Poland which is a NATO member state unlike Ukraine
If Russia escalate to nuclear conflict we won't be the ones starting WW3 though, they will.
If we make clear to Russia that we can't stand idly by while nuclear weapons are used in Europe, and they choose to use them anyway, then they've started WW3 and we need to fight it and win it.
Being weak in the face of nuclear aggression just increases the risk of a nuclear escalation, it doesn't reduce it.
Exactly.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv. Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
If Ukraine wants to develop its own nukes again that is its affair.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We don't have to go to WW3. We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.
Enough! Anybody else reposting that video game footage will spend a month in ConHome!
Spoilsport.
DOOD
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
This has actually happened before. At the start of the SMO we had a video of a multiple Hokum-B shootdown that was furiously wanked over until nothing came out but a drop of watery blood. Turned out it was from ARMA 3.
It's rather good video footage if so. Has a cinema verite quality, complete with the right amount of Ukrainian yelling, grainy twilight and crackling small arms fire
Maybe wars should ONLY be fought with video games. May the country with the best coders win
There is an old Star Trek episode where two warring planets decided that all the actual war & killing was a bit uncivilised, so they have a computer work out how many people would have died on each side every few days and they are politely vaporised.
Comments
And as I note its semantic anyway, it has happened but there are follow up issues, so quibbling about done or not done is meaningless.
Why would you want to allow him to escalate to a nuclear conflict. Nuclear escalation is in nobodies interests and prevention is better than cure here.
https://youtu.be/Opoib-Q_UGw
The UFA fucking shred the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army in that. Imagine how screwed the Russians will be when they find out how cold a Donbas winter is.
She can’t do politics can she?
Hope you are well sir.
The tone of your posts recently suggests you are quite keen on Sir Keir as PM.
Are you considering a change in loyalties?
(P.S. I have noted your absolute consistency over Truss' appointment, which rather makes a fool of those of us who claimed you would unthinkingly support whoever was Tory leader)
Rolling a tank along a road, with no support, would result in the destruction of the tank, quite rapidly, from 1916 onwards. The Russians are simply not able to implement tactics that are literally a hundred years old.
also very high earners.
Reality of course is the 45% tax issues wasn't in itself important, but it was the optics that were awful. Similarly people are against benefits going up too much but it is still immoral not to keep benefits in line with cost of living as otherwise you put some people in to poverty.
That actually gets a wow from me.
Truss really is hopeless .
Those Remainers who argued against many of the measures where simply exercising their rights to criticise and argue for what they wanted for the implementation. That is part of democracy too. You might not have liked what they said, but they had a right to be heard too. The debate never stops.
Is that just video game footage? I've just got up and had coffee
Or am I missing a meta-meta-joke?
But the front has shifted 45km in a day, some places elsewhere. After the Russians have spent months grinding out metres.
It was utterly indefensible on the doorsteps. Worse, it showed they had no political nous whatsoever.
Though I certainly have little fear of a Starmer Premiership compared to recent Labour leaders
(B) I've already addressed the 1997 point earlier in the thread, stop trolling and start reading.
Although, now more prone to hiding than being in the spotlight. So who knows with this lot.
Too late now. Damage has been done.
Can't see a way back for this administration.
Teatime. I was doing a roast chicken. Knock at the door. Two coppers. There’s been an allegation of harassment and malicious comms and we’ve come to arrest you."
https://twitter.com/CF_Farrow/status/1577092705154666496
what would his cabinet look like?
Do we know where he stands on political economics, so what would define his economic strategy - as similar to Truss or return to Johnsonism - for we have the Truss government now trying to move away from the high tax declinist failure of the Sunak Johnson approach.
Does Wallace have any odd voting record that can help us know what to expect, he is sound on social liberalism and will continue to pursue the social woke agenda of the Boris and Truss governments - or does he have Badenoch tendencies?
Does he have the communication skill set to connect with voters, deal with persistently annoying media interviews etc. it is noted that Truss communicated very well in her interview with Sam Coates today, she was fluent and perfectly on message.
What would Wallace pitch to the country be, to convince them of yet another term of conservatives in power appendaged onto the end of this circus?
There is a lot of this false footage going around. Mostly it has been of air combat as that is easier to make look real to the untrained eye but there is plenty of anti-tank stuff being passed off as real as well.
Likely that those who want one want to get rid of the Tories . It will be interesting to see the final results because currently it’s an absolute shocker for Truss .
The 1922 should make it a rule that candidates have to do full broadcast interviews with main broadcasters. She would have been found out under pressure and the party would not be in this mess.
Gone by xmas.
For a family with three kids, the marginal tax rate for a given salary looks like this:
https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1577215787856629762
If she lasts that long.
Maybe wars should ONLY be fought with video games. May the country with the best coders win
KK confirms on GB News, the OBR report will be brought forward from 23rd November to the 23rd November.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_rY6gn7GNM
One thing is that the 45p is certainly the wrong end to be worrying about, there's a lot of people who would be much better off if their real tax rate was "only" 45p.
Otherwise, yes, if I had not been told, I would have presumed this was real
This is only going to get worse. Stable Diffusion is apparently gonna make AI videos. They will be 100% convincing. Then what?
“I am disappointed by the subsequent reversal”
“I am disappointed that members of our party staged a coup and undermined the PM in an unprofessional way”
https://twitter.com/emsferg/status/1577268773022666752
Fully deserving of a 1997 result. I only wish it didn’t take some of the new 2019 intake with them - they could have been the future of the party and they will now all be swept away.
This wasn't a "put in the van and accidentally broke their neck" or "fell down the stairs" or literal beating. This was a "we need to question you at the police station, and also look for evidence of alleged crime, if you don't mind".
As for whether she harassed people online or not, that's down to a court, I guess?
Militant on the stage and the Moderates doing the walkout
As for the cabinet, then almost certainly Sunak as Chancellor - otherwise there'd be another months long debate about policy - and the worst of the Truss appointments replaced by old lags like Gove. In the expectation they'd get on with competently administering a department and get elevated to the Lords at the end of the term.
You might think that fanciful, but it seems less so that expecting any sort of Truss revival.
Not hugely surprised a) that I missed your post; or b) that you were too young then. It shows.
So as a would have been Lab voter I presume you are a dyed (edit: been influenced by our own PB poster!) in the wool Cons supporter now and frankly, these past few years, who can blame you.
That absolutely sounds like harassment to me. If there's evidence of a crime, then investigate it yes, but seizing materials or forcing entry should only happen with a warrant surely?
And for once they seem to be doing a fairly professional job of undermining the PM. Not that she needs much help in self-destructing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/oct/04/tory-conference-michael-gove-liz-truss-kwasi-kwarteng?CMP=share_btn_tw
https://twitter.com/los_fisher/status/1577276466244464640
Pretty funny/disturbing/cautionary some of the responses. Koleeberks is my auditor of choice.
He looks generally to be quite socially conservative and views the poor as something to be endured and kept in their place (at least based on his voting record).
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11668/ben_wallace/wyre_and_preston_north/votes
He might be a safe pair of hands but I am not a fan of his political positions nor his lack of backbone.
The Truss core vote is now you and Bart
https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1576849849626275846?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1576849849626275846|twgr^872b84281e652ee6be5cbbb9569496062e6e59e4|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ukrainian-russian-war-thread-xv.533413/page-238
And even if she had done whatever someone said she had done (still wholly unclear to me) then is that worth a spell in the cells rather than interview at their mutual convenience? Where was the imminent threat to the person or public order?
Whereas if someone like Wallace takes over now, there’s a scenario where they lead the Tories to a respectable defeat. Perhaps a weaker PM Starmer than looks likely at the moment, with a narrow C+S that could be a bit unstable, such as needing the SNP.
Much more appealing for Boris to take over as LOTO then, claiming that “I’m clearly the only leader who can unite the country” and go into a new GE in 2025/2026 aiming to deliver a big majority again.
I'm not a died (or even dyed)-in-the-wool anything supporter. We have elections, and at each of them I choose who to vote for. For the last two elections, that was the Tories, because Corbyn. At the next one, it will probably be Labour, but it does depend on the local candidate - over the last few years (especially over Covid and lockdowns) neither major party has shown itself to be particularly worthy of forming a government, but I suppose we have to have one or the other.
You’ve got those saying that yes, we have to give in if Putin ever detonates a nuke, unless it’s literally to preserve the UK. And confident he’ll never push it to the UK, because we’ve got nukes, too.
Okay. Then what happens?
If we make the call that we must give in to at least some of what he wants if he ever detonates a nuke, he’ll probably notice that. And so will all the other countries in the world. Together with the codicil that “at least he won’t attack us, because we’ve got nukes too.”
If we’d surrender to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine – would we really risk death for Estonia? What would Tallinn think? Or Moscow?
How about Poland? Putin would have shown he’ll detonate a nuke and has got away with it. What would Warsaw think?
If you’re in any of those countries, you’re getting nukes and getting them NOW. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Finland. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. And with them having nukes, and there being no taboo on nukes, which country WON’T get nukes? In a world of “safe” and “victim,” not having nukes puts you in the category of “victim.”
What about Ukraine? A few years down the line, what happens there? Russia decides Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, and Odesa look like they should be Russian, and, after regenerating as much as they can, make a stab for them. And this time, when fully extended, rather than letting the conventional fight go against them, it’s bucket-of-instant-sunshine time and “Stop there! We win!”
Ukraine knows this. So they HAVE to build nukes themselves. At which point, they’ll want their occupied territories back. Tac-nuke versus tac-nuke. Rumours of someone smuggling a nuke into Moscow or Kyiv.
Basically – if Putin benefits AT ALL from use of a nuke, non-proliferation is gone. Use of nukes is no longer taboo. Massive rush for nuclear weapons. Even without flashpoints like Ukraine (or Taiwan, or North Korea), we’d see nukes used again within five years somewhere. And we’d see nukes used again in Ukraine in a few years as well – and possibly by both sides.
What’s the odds of London dying in nuclear fire in that world?
We stop it here, or we never stop it.
And Truss is not a Libertarian. She is a classic Tory - tax cuts for your rich mates and fuck the rest of the country. If anyone should be delighted with her it is you. She is a classic Tory wet dream.
I would take Wallace any day over Truss or Johnson. But unlike you with your 'my party right or wrong' approach I am willing to recognise the failings as well as the benefits of the various potential party leaders.
Leaving might have been a stupid idea. Voting to leave and then not leaving was always a more stupid idea.
However it is not in NATO and we only go to WW3 for NATO states defence
We have to ensure that Putin is materially worse off from detonating a nuke.
Otherwise we move to a world of wide proliferation where the use of nukes is no longer taboo.
In that world, the clock inevitably ticks over to midnight.