Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
One of the great successes of WWII was scientific Operations Research. Find out what works. Do more of that. Find out what doesn’t, do less of that.
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
Meanwhile, in other news: In a joint statement issued with Ms Fulani, Buckingham Palace described Friday's reconcilation between the two women as "filled with warmth and understanding". Lady Susan has "pledged to deepen her awareness of the sensitivities involved" and the Royal Households would continue to "focus on inclusion and diversity", the statement said. The Royal Households made a commitment to training programmes, including "examining what can be learnt from Sistah Space". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64005705
The last bit makes it sound as though the Royal Households will be looking to sell off stuff produced by the King's close relations, on the basis of a 50-50 split. Come to think of it, maybe they could teach Sistah Space a thing or two?
Meanwhile, in other news: In a joint statement issued with Ms Fulani, Buckingham Palace described Friday's reconcilation between the two women as "filled with warmth and understanding". Lady Susan has "pledged to deepen her awareness of the sensitivities involved" and the Royal Households would continue to "focus on inclusion and diversity", the statement said. The Royal Households made a commitment to training programmes, including "examining what can be learnt from Sistah Space". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64005705
The last bit makes it sound as though the Royal Households will be looking to sell off stuff produced by the King's close relations, on the basis of a 50-50 split. Come to think of it, maybe they could teach Sistah Space a thing or two?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
One of the great successes of WWII was scientific Operations Research. Find out what works. Do more of that. Find out what doesn’t, do less of that.
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
They clearly all came from Goldman Sachs ;-)
Its such a ridiculous whinge, how dare somebody ask me to look at how we have spent the money and what has worked. I mean when the government didn't do that over COVID, they get it in the neck.....
The story screams somebody has been down the boozer this afternoon having a massive moan to a mate at the BBC about being asked to do extra work.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
I am not suggesting that custodial sentences be handed down for possession. Fines are punishment enough in these straightened times. I am not advocating a 'hang them, flog them, throw away the key' approach - I am just advocating the police aim to stop 100% of crime wherever and whenever it occurs, depriving criminals of the oxygen that they need to operate.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
One of the great successes of WWII was scientific Operations Research. Find out what works. Do more of that. Find out what doesn’t, do less of that.
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
Exactly. I'm far from a Rishi fan, but this seems like a sensible and productive approach. Nobody should be afraid of oversight; it's essential to improvement (the depth charge example is a good one).
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
One of the great successes of WWII was scientific Operations Research. Find out what works. Do more of that. Find out what doesn’t, do less of that.
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
They clearly all came from Goldman Sachs ;-)
Another was the claims about vulnerability of tanks. The scientists analysed the problem. And found the following.
Nearly every tank that burnt, started as an ammunition fire. In a number of tanks which had burnt in a fire, the petrol tanks hadn’t even caught fire.
So, the problem wasn’t petrol. Further, it was traced to crews piling extra rounds everywhere.
The British army introduced wet stowage (think a wine rack consisting of slots in a fish tank) and introduced severe disciplinary policies about carry extra rounds.
For the rest of the war, British tanks burnt less than German ones, by a fair margin. Fires that did start were much slower, giving crews time to get out.
Note that the Russian designed tanks still have the same ammunition problem - a hit on the ammo causes the propellant to ignite. This cause a violent fire, which release a vast quantity of red hot gas. Which kills the crew. The pressure further rises in the tank, until the ammunition goes high order (the propellant remaining actually explodes). This then lobs the turret in the style we’ve all seen.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
What has the fact construction work being conducted or not got anything to do with trespassing onto private land? Also under the original judgement, does that mean if somebody downs tools and pops off for the lunch break, its ok?
The charge was aggravated trespass. Which might explain it.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
If only the police applied it in their own disciplinary procedures, and got rid of all the misogynists and racists.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
Pretty preposterous, from an actual judge and all.
There will be traces of cocaine found in any venue after a party has been hosted that involves journalists, any kind of media types at all really, bankers, or really anyone who's rich and powerful. To be honest, you might as well say any party attended by middle-class city types under the age of 40.
If I hosted a party for a bunch of rich people I'd be more shocked if there weren't traces of cocaine in the loo the day afterwards.
Coke use is now far wider use than rich middle classes at their nice dinner parties, go to any pub on a Friday / Saturday night, plenty of people will be off their tits on it. The price of the stuff has become incredibly cheap due in no small part to the Albanian Mafia taking control and cutting out the middle men. We were talking yesterday how football violence has been on the rise and a lot of that has been put down to widespread coke use.
Cocaine usually consumed in the form of crack has been rife in poor areas for decades.
My first job was picking & packing in a warehouse (legal pharmaceuticals, funnily enough) in the late nineties. I was shocked, as an impressionable teen, at how much of my colleagues' pay packets went up their noses. So I dunno if it's changed that much since then. The 'posh drug' stereotype has been wrong for a long time.
I worked 40 years in financial services, most recently in central London, and I never saw any drug-taking at all.
I have no doubt it went on but I never noticed it at all. If ever I was involved in a crime scene I suspect I'd be a lousy witness.
I think a lot of people have anxiety about finding themselves needing to report something criminal, and realising their recollections are crap. "So you claim the person who robbed you was between 5 and 6 ft tall, white, possibly mixed race, or black, and between 30 and 130 years old? Why don't come in and we can have a longer talk?"
Big Train boasts about 12 of my favourite TV sketches of all time. A work of peerless genius. It is amazing it is not better known. The best TV sketch show ever?
For me, it ties with 'Jam', which was much more hit'n'miss, but also took a lot more risks. The arguing with thick people sketch sometimes comes to mind https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok&t=5s
I remember 'The Gush'...
Chris Morris was involved in Big Train too, I think.
Lordy - The Gush. There was quite a lot of disturbing stuff in there. The sketch with the people trying to buy a new house was especially .... 'something'. I'm not sure what.
Daniel Hooper (also known as Swampy), Dr Larch Maxey, Isla Sandford, Lachlan Sandford, Juliet Stephenson-Clark and Scott Breen faced charges of aggravated trespass at Highbury Corner magistrates court in central London for their 31 days underground in January and February last year.
In October 2021, district judge Williams dismissed the charges in relation to the protest on the basis that HS2 was not carrying out any construction work on the site at the time the charges were levelled against the protesters.
However, the director of public prosecutions challenged her ruling. The case went to the high court and on Friday judges found in favour of the DPP and ordered a retrial at Highbury magistrates court in front of a new judge.
In their ruling, the judges found that the term “HS2 construction” encompassed clearing the site in preparation for the construction works to start including the eviction of the protesters and that Williams’ ruling was “irrational”.
What has the fact construction work being conducted or not got anything to do with trespassing onto private land? Also under the original judgement, does that mean if somebody downs tools and pops off for the lunch break, its ok?
The charge was aggravated trespass. Which might explain it.
I know that, but that just states "Intentionally obstructing, disrupting, or intimidating others from carrying out ‘lawful activities’."....that doesn't state it has to be actually constructing shit at that moment in time.
The original ruling was bonkers, that people clearing site weren't having their lawful activities obstructed / disrupted by knobheads digging massive danger holes under the ground they are trying to clear and then living in them.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
I am not suggesting that custodial sentences be handed down for possession. Fines are punishment enough in these straightened times. I am not advocating a 'hang them, flog them, throw away the key' approach - I am just advocating the police aim to stop 100% of crime wherever and whenever it occurs, depriving criminals of the oxygen that they need to operate.
Sure:
And I'm pointing out that on day one, some sympathetic character - perhaps a granny with chronic pain that she helps manage with cannabis - will sit down with a joint on the steps of Hackney Police Station.
She will refuse to take a fine, and will choose a jury trial instead. The police will - of course - warn her that instead of a £100 fine, she could be on the hook for 30 days in chokey or worse. And she'd say, "I'll take my chances, thank you."
The jury will acquit.
After half a dozen juries have all chosen to acquit, the Director of Public Prosecutions will send around a memo which begins: "it is proving impossible to secure convictions of people found with small quantities of cannabis, and we have only a limited budget."
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Haha well yeah.
I'd like him to explain why that isn't appropriate, if he thinks it is over Ukraine.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "This is about looking at what we have put in, what we have got out."
My God.
One of the great successes of WWII was scientific Operations Research. Find out what works. Do more of that. Find out what doesn’t, do less of that.
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
Exactly. I'm far from a Rishi fan, but this seems like a sensible and productive approach. Nobody should be afraid of oversight; it's essential to improvement (the depth charge example is a good one).
It does not sound at all like Operations Research to me, FWIW. Which is why it needs clarifying.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
It works where the offence is one which pretty much everyone agrees should be illegal: such as vandalism, theft, etc.
It is more troublesome when there is a substantial minority of people who think the behavior should not be illegal, and another group feels minor infractions should not be worthy of jail time.
It used to be the case that the death penalty was mandatory in the UK for murder. The consequence of this was that juries, if they felt murder was too severe a punishment, would rather let defendants walk free than send them to their deaths.
Of course, one could get rid of jury trials.
But there is a reason why we're tried by our peers, instead of the police just deciding that we're guilty.
I am not suggesting that custodial sentences be handed down for possession. Fines are punishment enough in these straightened times. I am not advocating a 'hang them, flog them, throw away the key' approach - I am just advocating the police aim to stop 100% of crime wherever and whenever it occurs, depriving criminals of the oxygen that they need to operate.
Sure:
And I'm pointing out that on day one, some sympathetic character - perhaps a granny with chronic pain that she helps manage with cannabis - will sit down with a joint on the steps of Hackney Police Station.
She will refuse to take a fine, and will choose a jury trial instead. The police will - of course - warn her that instead of a £100 fine, she could be on the hook for 30 days in chokey or worse. And she'd say, "I'll take my chances, thank you."
The jury will acquit.
After half a dozen juries have all chosen to acquit, the Director of Public Prosecutions will send around a memo which begins: "it is proving impossible to secure convictions of people found with small quantities of cannabis, and we have only a limited budget."
Fixed penalty notices are usually replaced with higher fines if the individual loses their trial, not custodial sentences.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I'm now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.
This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I'm now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.
This is obviously in the US, but I have thought for ages we are going to see a similar shit show in UK in this sector.
Simply yes. People are borrowing vast sums to buy new cars. New cars lose money at insane rate per mile.
On a smaller scale, many people have taken on huge monthly bills to HP expensive mobile phones. We will, if things go the way they probably will, be seeing stories about repo on mobiles and laptops on a huge scale, and talk of a new digital divide.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Of course the report may be inaccurate, but it makes it sound as though he was thinking in particularly narrow and particularly selfish terms.
"What we've got out" of helping Ukraine is fairly obvious but not at all amenable to "audit".
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
There are number of tools and frameworks to analyse the value of intangibles vs tangisble costs. Consider the idea of brands and goodwill, for example. Plenty of ways to get those on a balance sheet.
For example the war has trashed the Russian military brand and massively boosted that of NATO countries.
Edit : for the next hundred years+ Ukraine is a nailed on friend for the U.K. This goes, to a lesser extent, to large chunks of Eastern Europe.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
What's the opinion on the 17.6% rise for UNITE members at Rolls Royce? Greedy and inflationary, or a free market?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
That was precisely my point. The defence of Ukraine is also about things difficult to quantify by audit, but rather more existential than the Brexit issues. The reaction of the military suggests some alarm over Sunak’s motives.
Those require urgent clarification, rather than unquestioning approval.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
Besides.
Rishi likes Brexit.
Although I'm not sure Brexit likes Rishi. It loved Boris even though it wasn't reciprocated. Loved him so much it made him PM and tossed in a landslide for good measure. But Rishi? No, I think it has it in for him. No justice or logic when it comes to relationships.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I'm now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.
This is obviously in the US, but I have thought for ages we are going to see a similar shit show in UK in this sector.
Simply yes. People are borrowing vast sums to buy new cars. New cars lose money at insane rate per mile.
On a smaller scale, many people have taken on huge monthly bills to HP expensive mobile phones. We will, if things go the way they probably will, be seeing stories about repo on mobiles and laptops on a huge scale, and talk of a new digital divide.
Evening all.
On the cars, can there be an repossession or margin call where there has been no default?
Fortunately I paid my car off a fortnight ago. Bit poorer now, however.
What we need for expensive never-never cars is a version of this, courtesy of the World Bollard Association.:
This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I'm now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.
This is obviously in the US, but I have thought for ages we are going to see a similar shit show in UK in this sector.
Simply yes. People are borrowing vast sums to buy new cars. New cars lose money at insane rate per mile.
On a smaller scale, many people have taken on huge monthly bills to HP expensive mobile phones. We will, if things go the way they probably will, be seeing stories about repo on mobiles and laptops on a huge scale, and talk of a new digital divide.
On the cars, can there be an repossession or margin call where there has been no default?
Fortunately I paid my car off a fortnight ago. Bit poorer now, however.
What we need for expensive never-never cars is a version of this, courtesy of the World Bollard Association.:
When the companies that actually own the car, with all value removed to offshore, via debt structure, go belly up? Who gets the car? Who gets the debt?
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
That page is based on a literature review which looked at 28 studies, only one of which was from the UK. That study, a D-Phil thesis, didn't look at zero tolerance policing; it looked at Blairite style community policing in Wales (and found that it didn't work). The vast majority of studies used were US-based.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
Weren't you just saying that you thought an economic system that allowed massive [global] concentration of wealth was a bad thing? In that context, putting some fetters on cross-border trade can't be entirely a bad thing.
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
That page is based on a literature review which looked at 28 studies, only one of which was from the UK. That study, a D-Phil thesis, didn't look at zero tolerance policing; it looked at Blairite style community policing in Wales (and found that it didn't work). The vast majority of studies used were US-based.
I asked for evidence for you assertion.
The link I posted, after ten seconds searching, merely points to the view of the police, justified or not. Critiquing it doesn’t do anything to further your point.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
If we're going to play this game, how can you justify maintaining the triple lock for pensioners? How much extra borrowing and inflation is going to go into meeting this increase? Which Services will have to be cut to pay for the extra money for pensioners?
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened for D-Day. Churchill told Roosevelt even with US help can't do it. It was deemed not enough resources, the man power, the kit required, so delayed by a year....then delayed again because of bad weather.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
You realise that we won the war, in a large part, by ruthless application of getting rid of stuff that didn’t work?
One response to Dunkirk was hatcheting a large number of engine and aircraft development projects - to concentrate on what could be actually built and used in the really near term. B1/39 and all that.
Edit : the military and cabinet, in the U.K. were very very conscious of the limits of the economy. Unlike in Nazi Germany where compete projects were allowed which required more resources than existed.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
A certain kind of Conservative views 39-45 as a terrible mistake. Obviously, they didn't/don't approve of Hitler, ghastly man. But there was an understanding to be had and the cost of the war was strengthening America and weakening the British Empire and that was an awfully high cost...
There's something similar with American isolationists.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
Weren't you just saying that you thought an economic system that allowed massive [global] concentration of wealth was a bad thing? In that context, putting some fetters on cross-border trade can't be entirely a bad thing.
Brexit steers to a more equitable distribution of wealth? Can't see that cause and effect. I'd support it if I could.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
That’s a nonsense post. I’ve said nothing to do With party politics. I haven’t taken sides at all.
If we had a Labour government, they would also ask you Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for settling up with the strikers demands?
We know know this as fact, I only deal in facts, because we did have a Labour government asking Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone from settling up with the striker demands.
The Winter of Discontent 1979 was not bad for the Labour government - giving into unaffordable demands and wrecking the economy is bad government, standing firm is superb government. Labour saved themselves dozens of MPs by standing firm, just as Sunak is doing right now.
The alternative is surrender. Surrender to higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the surrender.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened for D-Day. Churchill told Roosevelt even with US help can't do it. It was deemed not enough resources, the man power, the kit required, so delayed by a year....then delayed again because of bad weather.
The delay from 1943 to 1944 was from staff work. Mainly about enough landing craft to make the initial assault heavy enough to overwhelm defences. This also allowed tile to develop a number of specialist systems for destroying the defences and improvements to the logistical support system for the attacking forces.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
To be fair, at the battle of the Marne they did defeat the massed battalions of the German army, their only real rival at the time.
This morning I discovered something *extremely* alarming happening in the car market, specifically in auto lending. I'm now convinced that there is a massive wave of car repossessions coming in 2023.
This is obviously in the US, but I have thought for ages we are going to see a similar shit show in UK in this sector.
Simply yes. People are borrowing vast sums to buy new cars. New cars lose money at insane rate per mile.
On a smaller scale, many people have taken on huge monthly bills to HP expensive mobile phones. We will, if things go the way they probably will, be seeing stories about repo on mobiles and laptops on a huge scale, and talk of a new digital divide.
Evening all.
On the cars, can there be an repossession or margin call where there has been no default?
Fortunately I paid my car off a fortnight ago. Bit poorer now, however.
What we need for expensive never-never cars is a version of this, courtesy of the World Bollard Association.:
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
That page is based on a literature review which looked at 28 studies, only one of which was from the UK. That study, a D-Phil thesis, didn't look at zero tolerance policing; it looked at Blairite style community policing in Wales (and found that it didn't work). The vast majority of studies used were US-based.
I asked for evidence for you assertion.
The link I posted, after ten seconds searching, merely points to the view of the police, justified or not. Critiquing it doesn’t do anything to further your point.
The work of DCI Ray Mallon in Hartlepool has been well-docmented:
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened for D-Day. Churchill told Roosevelt even with US help can't do it. It was deemed not enough resources, the man power, the kit required, so delayed by a year....then delayed again because of bad weather.
The delay from 1943 to 1944 was from staff work. Mainly about enough landing craft to make the initial assault heavy enough to overwhelm defences. This also allowed tile to develop a number of specialist systems for destroying the defences and improvements to the logistical support system for the attacking forces.
Are you saying despite the rhetoric that Churchill didn't recklessly just send everybody to fight them on the beaches, by land, by sea and in the air? There might have been some planning and analysis of resources required learning from the past experiences during the war?
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
A certain kind of Conservative views 39-45 as a terrible mistake. Obviously, they didn't/don't approve of Hitler, ghastly man. But there was an understanding to be had and the cost of the war was strengthening America and weakening the British Empire and that was an awfully high cost...
There's something similar with American isolationists.
The British Empire was moribund by 1939, and losing it was a big gain for the UK.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
I wonder what the criteria would be?
AFAICS, having tried to follow this closely, there's not too much that our lot have got badly wrong on this one. Each capability has been carefully thought through in advance, and seem to have been timely and appropriate.
There are things I would like to think I can judge, but really I'm in no clear position to do so.
Was listening to an interesting debate on Deutsche Welle yesterday, about whether influence in the EU has shifted to the East, whether DE / FR influence has declined somewhat whilst still remaining central, and whether Poland is about to become a more leading country. (Verdict: more or less yes, yes, yes.)
One point was that UK judgement and military support for Ukraine had helped restore damaged relationships post-Brexit - which seems to suggest it is a positive.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
To be fair, at the battle of the Marne they did defeat the massed battalions of the German army, their only real rival at the time.
Only after they threw the rule book in the Seine and got real.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
That was precisely my point. The defence of Ukraine is also about things difficult to quantify by audit, but rather more existential than the Brexit issues. The reaction of the military suggests some alarm over Sunak’s motives.
Those require urgent clarification, rather than unquestioning approval.
Yes. I can't see how it makes sense other than 'we're spending X, is it going to where it has most impact per the objective of helping Ukraine and hurting Putin whilst not risking nuclear escalation?"
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
If we're going to play this game, how can you justify maintaining the triple lock for pensioners? How much extra borrowing and inflation is going to go into meeting this increase? Which Services will have to be cut to pay for the extra money for pensioners?
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
With all this “other stuff” nothing to do with the actual question, It’s very much looking like you have no answer to the question, isn’t it?
Are you prepared to tear up your budget? Are you really happy to gamble the fortunes of our UK economy just to appease Mick Lynch and a 19% demand from Nurses? Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts, from your settling up with all these striker demands?
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
That page is based on a literature review which looked at 28 studies, only one of which was from the UK. That study, a D-Phil thesis, didn't look at zero tolerance policing; it looked at Blairite style community policing in Wales (and found that it didn't work). The vast majority of studies used were US-based.
I asked for evidence for you assertion.
The link I posted, after ten seconds searching, merely points to the view of the police, justified or not. Critiquing it doesn’t do anything to further your point.
Also may I say that it is mildly amusing that you're insisting on empirical evidence from me, but registering concern at the idea that the Prime Minister might be seeking empirical evidence of the benefits of continuing to wage a proxy war on the European mainland. Personally I consider it to be a failure of policy that such assessment is not already being made and updated frequently, and pathetic arrogance on the part of the 'Whitehall source' who is so concerned that Rishi isn't as keen to wrote blank cheques as Boris was.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
I wonder what the criteria would be?
AFAICS, having tried to follow this closely, there's not too much that our lot have got badly wrong on this one. Each capability has been carefully thought through in advance, and seem to have been timely and appropriate.
There are things I would like to think I can judge, but really I'm in no clear position to do so.
Was listening to an interesting debate on Deutsche Welle yesterday, about whether influence in the EU has shifted to the East, whether DE / FR influence has declined somewhat whilst still remaining central, and whether Poland is about to become a more leading country. (Verdict: more or less yes, yes, yes.)
One point was that UK judgement and military support for Ukraine had helped restore damaged relationships post-Brexit - which seems to suggest it is a positive.
There are already French and German politicians pointing out that Ukraine as a candidate EU member will probably follow Poland in a trajectory to wealth and prominence, if they can beat the problems with corruption.
Which means a country the size of Italy but with a much more dynamic and growing economy. It would tend to be a natural leader of a group of East European nations….
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
Would it not be more appropriate to conduct that exercise with Brexit ?
Hmm not sure how even Goldmans could do this. The benefits are intangible and the costs are real. That's hard to model in a fair and objective way.
There are number of tools and frameworks to analyse the value of intangibles vs tangisble costs. Consider the idea of brands and goodwill, for example. Plenty of ways to get those on a balance sheet.
For example the war has trashed the Russian military brand and massively boosted that of NATO countries.
Edit : for the next hundred years+ Ukraine is a nailed on friend for the U.K. This goes, to a lesser extent, to large chunks of Eastern Europe.
It's possible, yes, but in my experience very open to subjectivity and getting the answer you want.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
That seems rather unlikely. The RUSI, for example, is conducting continuing detailed analysis of the progress of the war (and has already outlined several lessons for future UK defence planning in an interim report, which I linked here a few days ago).
All I’m saying is that it’s essential Sunak’s intentions are clarified. In the meantime, it’s pretty futile arguing about what they are.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
You may indeed be right, on the other hand you are probably not. The distance between genius and idiocy is but a small step.
Earlier in the week you at least had trend in your favour, you haven't got that now. I suspect your instinct despite an absence of evidence might be correct. It smells like 1992 to me as well. However the evidence is pointing in the other direction at present. That may yet change.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
To be fair, at the battle of the Marne they did defeat the massed battalions of the German army, their only real rival at the time.
Only after they threw the rule book in the Seine and got real.
Nonetheless, the most effective army in the world in 1914. Other countries also had their plans modified by events. It is the nature of war.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
If we're going to play this game, how can you justify maintaining the triple lock for pensioners? How much extra borrowing and inflation is going to go into meeting this increase? Which Services will have to be cut to pay for the extra money for pensioners?
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
With all this “other stuff” nothing to do with the actual question, It’s very much looking like you have no answer to the question, isn’t it?
Are you prepared to tear up your budget? Are you really happy to gamble the fortunes of our UK economy just to appease Mick Lynch and a 19% demand from Nurses? Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts, from your settling up with all these striker demands?
What fraction is it of the money pissed away by Truss and Kwarteng?
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Wasn't there talk in one of the leadership elections that Ben Wallace wasn't convinced about Rishi's Soundness On Defence?
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Maybe - but I am reminded of the pre WWI French Army, where any questioning of readiness or effectiveness was declared to be treason. So they could get on with making sure the red trousers were the right shade of red.
To be fair, at the battle of the Marne they did defeat the massed battalions of the German army, their only real rival at the time.
They did, but they were helped by the insanity of the German invasion plan.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
Not necessarily. It could simply be that private schools help you to get recruited and promoted by other former private school pupils.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
A certain kind of Conservative views 39-45 as a terrible mistake. Obviously, they didn't/don't approve of Hitler, ghastly man. But there was an understanding to be had and the cost of the war was strengthening America and weakening the British Empire and that was an awfully high cost...
There's something similar with American isolationists.
The British Empire was moribund by 1939, and losing it was a big gain for the UK.
I think those are probably generalisations too far.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Dunno. We could have reduced aid to the USSR from 1943 on, so it couldn’t attack Hitler, just induce a stalemate in Eastern Europe
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Dunno. We could have reduced aid to the USSR from 1943 on, so it couldn’t attack Hitler, just induce a stalemate in Eastern Europe
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
In 1943 we didn't know if it would work.
We were flattening cities by conventional and incendiary bombs. The Hamburg fire bombing of 1943 killed over 30 000. Rather like the London blitz it didn't cause a collapse of civilian morale and desire to surrender. Bombing very rarely does, as Putin should note.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Dunno. We could have reduced aid to the USSR from 1943 on, so it couldn’t attack Hitler, just induce a stalemate in Eastern Europe
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
In 1943 we didn't know if it would work.
It would have been a gamble. Not very Gareth Southgate
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Only by idiots.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f**** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
I think its pretty simple, if this report is simply a Tony Blair-esque scheme for "evidence based" approach to policy (I want to happen), Sunak will be in trouble pretty quickly as the likes of Wallace will kick up a fuss in no time. It just isn't going to fly.
Hence why it sounds more like a whinging Whitehall official in the boozer on Friday afternoon moaning about being asked to do a bloody report about what we have spent all the money on.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Only by idiots.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f*** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
Do you think the US should have invaded Japan instead?
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Only by idiots.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f**** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
It doesn’t match history, but it’s a fair question if the allies had nukes in June 1944, then it would have saved thousands of British, US, Canadian, French and many more lives. How many died in concentration and extermination camps after 6th June 1944?
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
If we're going to play this game, how can you justify maintaining the triple lock for pensioners? How much extra borrowing and inflation is going to go into meeting this increase? Which Services will have to be cut to pay for the extra money for pensioners?
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
With all this “other stuff” nothing to do with the actual question, It’s very much looking like you have no answer to the question, isn’t it?
Are you prepared to tear up your budget? Are you really happy to gamble the fortunes of our UK economy just to appease Mick Lynch and a 19% demand from Nurses? Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts, from your settling up with all these striker demands?
What fraction is it of the money pissed away by Truss and Kwarteng?
When the middle class gets more money, they shove it under their matresses. When the rich do, they go out and spend, thus helping the economy.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
You may indeed be right, on the other hand you are probably not. The distance between genius and idiocy is but a small step.
Earlier in the week you at least had trend in your favour, you haven't got that now. I suspect your instinct despite an absence of evidence might be correct. It smells like 1992 to me as well. However the evidence is pointing in the other direction at present. That may yet change.
You’ve answered the wrong post, Pet.
It’s drunk tank Friday so you are forgiven, even though in context of this Rabbit Stomps Stodge on Strike Policy mini thread, your post made not a bit of sense. Though a rude person would say that’s only normal from you - I won’t.
PS. I have already admitted trend has “stalled” - but with +2 to 31 for Tory’s from tomorrows Opinium, it’s back on for many single digit leads in Jan & Feb.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
A certain kind of Conservative views 39-45 as a terrible mistake. Obviously, they didn't/don't approve of Hitler, ghastly man. But there was an understanding to be had and the cost of the war was strengthening America and weakening the British Empire and that was an awfully high cost...
There's something similar with American isolationists.
Arguably we should have just welcomed in all the German Jews, like the Hugenots. They would have added greatly to the economy.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Only by idiots.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f*** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
The “testing” nuke story was made up by a writer in the 1960s
The actual reason was that the industrial effort to make nukes was vast. Everyone knew this, including the Japanese - who knew all about fission, but didnt have the resources to develop it.
From the first days of the Manhattan Project, it was assumed that if it worked, 2 would have to be dropped. One to show that it existed. The second to show that it was in production.
This way why Groves built not one scientific experiment, but a production line for weapons.
Immediately after Hiroshima, Japanese scientists briefed the War Cabinet that it might be 18 months until the Americans could build another bomb.
As Niels Bohr put it (my paraphrase) - “I said that you would have to turn America into a giant science laboratory to build the Bomb. You did”
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Dunno. We could have reduced aid to the USSR from 1943 on, so it couldn’t attack Hitler, just induce a stalemate in Eastern Europe
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
As Richard Tyndall said, the war in Europe was over before we had a working atom bomb, even if we ignore the allied armies already on the ground. VE Day May 1945 First atom bomb test July 1945
While use of cocaine may be widespread in certain sectors of society, this does not make it right.
You might as well complain that certain sectors of society consume coffee, alcohol, or paracetemol - at this point, cocaine isn't some kind of illicit recreational vice, it's just another substance overworked and underpaid staffers use to get through the day.
Not many people end up dead because a condom full of coffee beans has ruptured in their gut.
I'm sure you know that's a stupid point - a condom full of paracetemol or pure alcohol that ruptured in someone's gut wouldn't be pleasant either - but the point here is that it's something people use to deal with life, rather than it being something they're doing out of malice, evil intent, or general "wrong"ness.
Blame should be shared equally between the people buying illegal drugs, the people selling illegal drugs and the people who think that making a widespread social practice illegal is a smart way to proceed. In fact I'd be tempted to load more of the blame on the last group.
Taking steps to limit the availability of addictive, life-ruining drugs is a good thing! but it has to be accompanied with policies that make people less likely to self medicate with those drugs - otherwise you just end up turning the most vulnerable people in society into criminals and doing nothing to actually improve their lives.
"Tough on smackheads. Tough on the causes of smackheads."
I think we may be overcomplicating the solution to this. 'Zero tolerance' is a very unfashionable notion of policing, but it worked. It feels to me like day to day drug using and dealing is no longer policed. I am sure detectives are still trying to smash drug rings, but where there's a market, other providers will simply replace those put out of action. Disrupt every deal, and punish possession, and there is no market. Dealers will of course try again - arrest and charge them again.
What do you do if juries refuse to convict people for possession?
Convict the jury?
It’s all been tried before. The KGB and Gestapo, at the height of their powers didn’t stop drug dealing and other criminality.
Where it has been tried in the UK, zero tolerance policing has worked very well.
If only the police applied it in their own disciplinary procedures, and got rid of all the misogynists and racists.
Be fair, when one of their number haas been convicted of murder they will usually act.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Can you not see the weakness in what you just posted that everyone else currently wincing at? The question set you: settling with all these strikers and Mick Lynches will mean both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone. But an answer from you came there none. Except some waffle about zahawi and Putin that is no answer to the question set you is it?
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
If we're going to play this game, how can you justify maintaining the triple lock for pensioners? How much extra borrowing and inflation is going to go into meeting this increase? Which Services will have to be cut to pay for the extra money for pensioners?
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
With all this “other stuff” nothing to do with the actual question, It’s very much looking like you have no answer to the question, isn’t it?
Are you prepared to tear up your budget? Are you really happy to gamble the fortunes of our UK economy just to appease Mick Lynch and a 19% demand from Nurses? Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts, from your settling up with all these striker demands?
What fraction is it of the money pissed away by Truss and Kwarteng?
When the middle class gets more money, they shove it under their matresses. When the rich do, they go out and spend, thus helping the economy.
Shouldn't that be: "When the middle class gets more money, they save it, improving the savings ratio, When the rich do, they go out and spend, thus causing inflation."?
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
We didn't have working nukes until over a year after D-Day. The first proper test was July 1945. Had we waited until then to do something about Nazi Occupied Europe the Iron Curtain would have been down the Channel rather than through Central Europe.
Dunno. We could have reduced aid to the USSR from 1943 on, so it couldn’t attack Hitler, just induce a stalemate in Eastern Europe
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
As Richard Tyndall said, the war in Europe was over before we had a working atom bomb, even if we ignore the allied armies already on the ground. VE Day May 1945 First atom bomb test July 1945
Perhaps more importantly, it was only after the Trinity test that it was known that it was a war ending weapon. Before that it was an insurance policy against it might be a war ending weapon.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
That second paragraph came straight from CCHQ.
No. My point being nothing needs to come from CCHQ - the greedy unions holding the country to ransom for something the country can’t afford simply speaks for itself. And absolutely everyone already knows the Union barons own Labour, everything that means to stand firm to 19% pay demands in order to control an economy and not wreck it - to tell people that’s the case would just be patronising. That’s the basis I’m right to say all these strikes are bad news for Labour, and Sunak and his ministers are enjoying themselves standing firm. It’s making them look great winning these strikes.
When was the last time a public sector Union actually “won” a strike? 🤷♀️
If Sunak and Zahawi try to equate the RCN with the RMT they're going to get nowhere slowly. All the polls show huge public support for the nurses and a politically astute Government would move some way toward meeting the nurses' demands.
As to "winning" strikes, the concept of negotiation and compromise means the RCN and the RMT know they aren't going to get everything they want - that rarely happens - but at the same time they need to be able to show their members the industrial action has been effective.
Mick Lynch says there's a deal to be done - I'm sure the RCN would say the same. What we now need is some sensible and realistic Government and a bit less of the posturing
Where I call you naive with “sensible, realistic, less posturing from government” Doesn’t it mean the government having to find some extra money? So your position is just say yes to either more borrowing or cuts elsewhere in public spending, whilst higher inflation for longer and all the pain that causes for everyone including the strikers and their families, comes with the extra borrowing and cuts to fund the massive pay deals?
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
The fact you have to wheel out the analogy of 1978/79 shows how divorced you are from the reality of the evolution of public opinion.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
What's the opinion on the 17.6% rise for UNITE members at Rolls Royce? Greedy and inflationary, or a free market?
It actually seems to be 10% (ie just below CPI rate of inflation) plus a £2000 one off cash payment.
It's only 17.6% if the two are rolled together and quoted over a one-year term.
So in essence it is cost of living, plus a payment to cover the extra cost of energy bills. Perhaps the Govt will offer NHS staff something similar.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
Not to mention the B32 (the other bomber), and the follow on B36/35 program
Oh and the B29D program - aka the B50.
The Silverplate B29s were about half way to the B50s.
The engines were much better, though not the monsters they put on the B50. And that was always the weakness of the stock B29
Nah, this one’s on Rishi and his decaying govt. The common thread though all these problems. Unless your blaming nursing strikes and double digit inflation on Mick Lynch too.
Comments
A classic was air dropped depth charges. Some simple maths and some tests showed that dropping depth charges from a plane more than x seconds after a submarine had submerged was virtually guaranteed not to do any good.
So the order went out not to drop, if the sub had been “down” for x seconds.
Since this reduced depth charge usage, this reduced costs. It also meant that planes saved depth charges for another attack. It also increased patrol coverage, since after dropping depth charges the plane would have to fly back to base to reload.
Overall it meant more dead Nazis and less sunk merchant ships per dollar/pound.
Its such a ridiculous whinge, how dare somebody ask me to look at how we have spent the money and what has worked. I mean when the government didn't do that over COVID, they get it in the neck.....
The story screams somebody has been down the boozer this afternoon having a massive moan to a mate at the BBC about being asked to do extra work.
Nearly every tank that burnt, started as an ammunition fire. In a number of tanks which had burnt in a fire, the petrol tanks hadn’t even caught fire.
So, the problem wasn’t petrol. Further, it was traced to crews piling extra rounds everywhere.
The British army introduced wet stowage (think a wine rack consisting of slots in a fish tank) and introduced severe disciplinary policies about carry extra rounds.
For the rest of the war, British tanks burnt less than German ones, by a fair margin. Fires that did start were much slower, giving crews time to get out.
Note that the Russian designed tanks still have the same ammunition problem - a hit on the ammo causes the propellant to ignite. This cause a violent fire, which release a vast quantity of red hot gas. Which kills the crew. The pressure further rises in the tank, until the ammunition goes high order (the propellant remaining actually explodes). This then lobs the turret in the style we’ve all seen.
The original ruling was bonkers, that people clearing site weren't having their lawful activities obstructed / disrupted by knobheads digging massive danger holes under the ground they are trying to clear and then living in them.
And I'm pointing out that on day one, some sympathetic character - perhaps a granny with chronic pain that she helps manage with cannabis - will sit down with a joint on the steps of Hackney Police Station.
She will refuse to take a fine, and will choose a jury trial instead. The police will - of course - warn her that instead of a £100 fine, she could be on the hook for 30 days in chokey or worse. And she'd say, "I'll take my chances, thank you."
The jury will acquit.
After half a dozen juries have all chosen to acquit, the Director of Public Prosecutions will send around a memo which begins: "it is proving impossible to secure convictions of people found with small quantities of cannabis, and we have only a limited budget."
The police would seem to disagree.
https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit/zero-tolerance-policing
Summary
Zero-tolerance policing strategies do not have a significantly significant effect on crime.
I’m surprised you or anyone feel you can even argue this one, I’m totally owning you here, just like the governments owning the unions and the Labour Party on this winter of discontent issue.
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Next PMQs ?
Which is why it needs clarifying.
Here's what I discovered (and what no one knows):
https://twitter.com/GuyDealership/status/1603794722140688384
This is obviously in the US, but I have thought for ages we are going to see a similar shit show in UK in this sector.
"Three sources briefed on @OpenAI's recent pitch to investors said the organization expects $200 million in revenue next year and $1 billion by 2024."
On a smaller scale, many people have taken on huge monthly bills to HP expensive mobile phones. We will, if things go the way they probably will, be seeing stories about repo on mobiles and laptops on a huge scale, and talk of a new digital divide.
What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
"What we've got out" of helping Ukraine is fairly obvious but not at all amenable to "audit".
It may be unfair on the Prime Minister, but wanting a cost-benefit analysis on the war as a whole would be very on-prejudice.
Rishi likes Brexit.
For example the war has trashed the Russian military brand and massively boosted that of NATO countries.
Edit : for the next hundred years+ Ukraine is a nailed on friend for the U.K.
This goes, to a lesser extent, to large chunks of Eastern Europe.
I imagine the pro-Conservative lobby think every strike puts a couple of points on the Conservative poll rating and of course strikes make some angry but it's more nuanced than that.
People see the enormous profits made by utility companies and other organisations and ask justifiably why these excessive profits cannot be accessed to pay the nurses.
People also see Zahawi calling nurses who argue for more money "supporters of Putin" and wonder where their Government has gone.
Simply arguing "everyone" (primarily but not exclusively the public sector) has to put up with a fall in living standards only works if it is demonstrably clear that is being applied to everyone (primarily but not exclusively the private sector).
Greedy and inflationary, or a free market?
The defence of Ukraine is also about things difficult to quantify by audit, but rather more existential than the Brexit issues.
The reaction of the military suggests some alarm over Sunak’s motives.
Those require urgent clarification, rather than unquestioning approval.
On the cars, can there be an repossession or margin call where there has been no default?
Fortunately I paid my car off a fortnight ago. Bit poorer now, however.
What we need for expensive never-never cars is a version of this, courtesy of the World Bollard Association.:
Flex post, flex post, flex post, flex post, flex post, flex post, BOLLARD.
#WorldBollardAssociation
https://twitter.com/WorldBollard/status/1560021356858806272
History suggests that it won’t be a kind event.
Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone, from your settling up with the striker demands - the nurses are demanding 19% it’s a fact, I only deal in facts, what will you give them just to settle it?
The link I posted, after ten seconds searching, merely points to the view of the police, justified or not. Critiquing it doesn’t do anything to further your point.
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
Set aside the amounts involved funding the increase for pensioners, the increase for nurses is a drop in the ocean.
One response to Dunkirk was hatcheting a large number of engine and aircraft development projects - to concentrate on what could be actually built and used in the really near term. B1/39 and all that.
Edit : the military and cabinet, in the U.K. were very very conscious of the limits of the economy. Unlike in Nazi Germany where compete projects were allowed which required more resources than existed.
There's something similar with American isolationists.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
If we had a Labour government, they would also ask you Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for settling up with the strikers demands?
We know know this as fact, I only deal in facts, because we did have a Labour government asking Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the higher inflation for longer for everyone from settling up with the striker demands.
The Winter of Discontent 1979 was not bad for the Labour government - giving into unaffordable demands and wrecking the economy is bad government, standing firm is superb government. Labour saved themselves dozens of MPs by standing firm, just as Sunak is doing right now.
The alternative is surrender. Surrender to higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts to pay for the surrender.
"Hartlepool’s crime figures were also cut. Comparing 1994 with 1996, the total of reported crimes was down by 27 per cent, from 15,600 to 11,300.7 The volume crimes that most directly and seriously impact upon the lives of individuals in a place like Hartlepool are domestic burglary and car crimes. Thefts of vehicles were down by 56 per cent.8 Domestic burglaries were down by 31 per cent.9 Thefts from vehicles were down by 15 per cent."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw35ol.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwippsrH7f77AhWTglwKHXi4BzwQFnoECDUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1kob9NYJ0r5GjGQF3pJASy
AFAICS, having tried to follow this closely, there's not too much that our lot have got badly wrong on this one. Each capability has been carefully thought through in advance, and seem to have been timely and appropriate.
There are things I would like to think I can judge, but really I'm in no clear position to do so.
Was listening to an interesting debate on Deutsche Welle yesterday, about whether influence in the EU has shifted to the East, whether DE / FR influence has declined somewhat whilst still remaining central, and whether Poland is about to become a more leading country. (Verdict: more or less yes, yes, yes.)
One point was that UK judgement and military support for Ukraine had helped restore damaged relationships post-Brexit - which seems to suggest it is a positive.
Link:
https://www.dw.com/en/how-the-ukraine-war-is-shifting-europes-balance-of-power/video-64107543
Eastern European countries are backing Ukraine and demanding more from the EU and NATO. Is the balance of power shifting to the east? Guests: Vendeline von Bredow (The Economist), Frank Hofmann (DW), Roman Goncharenko (DW)
Are you prepared to tear up your budget? Are you really happy to gamble the fortunes of our UK economy just to appease Mick Lynch and a 19% demand from Nurses? Are you in favour of both higher inflation pain for longer for everyone AND higher borrowing, tax rises and public sector cuts, from your settling up with all these striker demands?
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Which means a country the size of Italy but with a much more dynamic and growing economy. It would tend to be a natural leader of a group of East European nations….
The RUSI, for example, is conducting continuing detailed analysis of the progress of the war (and has already outlined several lessons for future UK defence planning in an interim report, which I linked here a few days ago).
All I’m saying is that it’s essential Sunak’s intentions are clarified. In the meantime, it’s pretty futile arguing about what they are.
Earlier in the week you at least had trend in your favour, you haven't got that now. I suspect your instinct despite an absence of evidence might be correct. It smells like 1992 to me as well. However the evidence is pointing in the other direction at present. That may yet change.
Then drop the bombs in 1945 winning the war outright for the West. Maybe drop a small one on Moscow. To drive the point home
We were flattening cities by conventional and incendiary bombs. The Hamburg fire bombing of 1943 killed over 30 000. Rather like the London blitz it didn't cause a collapse of civilian morale and desire to surrender. Bombing very rarely does, as Putin should note.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f**** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
Hence why it sounds more like a whinging Whitehall official in the boozer on Friday afternoon moaning about being asked to do a bloody report about what we have spent all the money on.
It’s drunk tank Friday so you are forgiven, even though in context of this Rabbit Stomps Stodge on Strike Policy mini thread, your post made not a bit of sense.
Though a rude person would say that’s only normal from you - I won’t.
PS. I have already admitted trend has “stalled” - but with +2 to 31 for Tory’s from tomorrows Opinium, it’s back on for many single digit leads in Jan & Feb.
The actual reason was that the industrial effort to make nukes was vast. Everyone knew this, including the Japanese - who knew all about fission, but didnt have the resources to develop it.
From the first days of the Manhattan Project, it was assumed that if it worked, 2 would have to be dropped. One to show that it existed. The second to show that it was in production.
This way why Groves built not one scientific experiment, but a production line for weapons.
Immediately after Hiroshima, Japanese scientists briefed the War Cabinet that it might be 18 months until the Americans could build another bomb.
As Niels Bohr put it (my paraphrase) - “I said that you would have to turn America into a giant science laboratory to build the Bomb. You did”
VE Day May 1945
First atom bomb test July 1945
Not that I think either is a true statement!
#In my £140 cab, two hours later still not home#
Thanks so much Rishi.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
It's only 17.6% if the two are rolled together and quoted over a one-year term.
So in essence it is cost of living, plus a payment to cover the extra cost of energy bills. Perhaps the Govt will offer NHS staff something similar.
https://news.sky.com/story/rolls-royce-motor-cars-gives-factory-workers-pay-award-of-up-to-17-6-to-avert-strikes-12768934
Oh and the B29D program - aka the B50.
The Silverplate B29s were about half way to the B50s.
The engines were much better, though not the monsters they put on the B50. And that was always the weakness of the stock B29