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.
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.
Worth noting that even a plurality of Tory voters support the nurses strike, contrary to our little bunny booster.
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.
Worth noting that even a plurality of Tory voters support the nurses strike, contrary to our little bunny booster.
This current crop of Tories can’t even get their union bashing dog whistles right.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
I don’t have much sympathy for the view that killing people by nukes is somehow ethically different to killing them by conventional means.
Dead is dead.
I agree, and the largely forgotten firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 killed as many as both nuclear bombs.
While nuclear bombs make the destruction of cities and infrastructure easier and more complete, the real moral consideration is whether doing the same by mass conventional bombing is any more moral.
"Germany ups reliance on Huawei for 5G despite security fears"
Shakes head.....
While...
The Strand report shows that while Germany is not alone in increasing its use of Chinese-made RAN gear in its 5G network, many small European countries, especially the Nordics and eastern states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, do not use any.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Do you think Northern Ireland subsidises the rest of the UK?
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.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
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
Or everyone's favourite (or should be); Jack Northrop's TB-35.
The amount of sheer monetary power the US had during WW2 was staggering. The war in Ukraine will be about three factors: politics, production and logistics. As long as the politics keeps the current anti-Russian coalition together, they do not stand a chance in production or logistics terms.
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.
Bombs is bombs. Corpses is corpses. What we did to Dresden and Hamburg is comparable with the damage done by nukes, so your outrage is confected and silly
Fifa is to reconsider the format of the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Mexico and Canada, says president Gianni Infantino.
The teams will increase from 32 to 48 for the competition and were set to be divided into 16 groups of three, with the top two progressing to the last 32. Infantino said that would be looked at after the "success" of the four-team groups at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar.
The proposed new format is nearly as bad as the new Champions League format!
And of course...
Fifa will stage an expanded Club World Cup featuring 32 men's teams from June 2025, says its president Gianni Infantino.
At this rate, top clubs are going to need squads of 50 players to play all the games in all the competitions.
The cynic in me thinks this was FIFA's plan all along. Clubs said to FIFA that they would not countenance a World Cup where the finalists play more than seven games. So FIFA came up with this format knowing that everyone would say that's rubbish, we need to keep groups of four. And before you know it, FIFA will be saying to clubs, "there is no alternative, we need an eighth game."
Of course, the obvious solution is to go straight to the last 16 from 12 groups of four with group winners and the best four runners up progressing from the groups. But that would be far too sensible.
The problem with that approach is that those teams who are in a group with total no hoper countries get a massive advantage.
Personally, I'd have the second placed teams play each other to narrow it down, with the best performing second placed team against the worst, etc.
In this way, while it is theoretically possible that a team plays eight games, it's not likely. It's fairer. And it's more fun.
I don't think it's that unfair to be honest. I don't think there are any especially weak teams in the top 48 countries these days. The only issue is that the groups going latter have an advantage, but actually, for scheduling purposes, it would have to be the best two runners up from the first six groups and the best two runners up from the second six groups. It's not fair, but then the draw is never fair anyway, so I don't think it matters too much. And everyone starts the tournament knowing that three wins gets you through.
16 groups of 3 with the group winners going through to a knockout phase. Think I'd go with that.
That keeps the total number of games at the current 63(*) and removes the incentive for the last game in a group to be colluded on but it comes close to making it a knockout right from game 1.
I doubt they could do that for 2026 - I'd imagine 79 total games is already in contracts so it could be exceeded but would be difficult to drop below.
(*) I never count the pointless glorified friendly for the losing semi finalists which they really should abolish.
What IS the plan then? A last 32 knockout with only the bottom teams from groups of 3 not making it?
If so I think that's bloated and flaccid (if one can be both).
That's the current plan, yes. It's also a really bad idea but nobody has yet come up with a better plan...
I came pretty close today to ordering a £300 taxi because I don't trust the trains on Sunday. All looks great on the timetable but it is not going to work in reality.
I have got a dim view of both sides. I don't understand how it can get to the point where they can be allowed to ruin the christmas holiday period, for so many businesses and people.
I came pretty close today to ordering a £300 taxi because I don't trust the trains on Sunday. All looks great on the timetable but it is not going to work in reality.
I have got a dim view of both sides. I don't understand how it can get to the point where they can be allowed to ruin the christmas holiday period, for so many businesses and people.
been using the train (nottingham to Leicester ) on strike days including today and the staff are so much nicer . Trains ok to time as well
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
With all the chat about nukes and WW2 - I enjoyed (well, 'enjoyed' as much as you can about such things) Dan Carlin's "Supernova In The East" series that ran over the past while that goes into the Japanese aspect of WW2 :
OK let’s make the counter factual more interesting
What if we’d developed nukes by mid 1944? What would we have done with them?
I think we’d have wiped out, say, Munich and a couple of other big cities, with the promise of Berlin to come very soon - unless the Germans surrendered entirely and handed over all the Nazis
Preventing Stalin taking half of Europe as well. A pleasant dream
OK let’s make the counter factual more interesting
What if we’d developed nukes by mid 1944? What would we have done with them?
I think we’d have wiped out, say, Munich and a couple of other big cities, with the promise of Berlin to come very soon - unless the Germans surrendered entirely and handed over all the Nazis
Preventing Stalin taking half of Europe as well. A pleasant dream
Elon Musk is closing the accounts of journalists who criticised him on Twitter, claiming they doxxed him by circulating his location data. He'd have a point if so, but they didn't do it. This includes writers for the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and Voice of America.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Do you think Northern Ireland subsidises the rest of the UK?
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
Or everyone's favourite (or should be); Jack Northrop's TB-35.
The amount of sheer monetary power the US had during WW2 was staggering. The war in Ukraine will be about three factors: politics, production and logistics. As long as the politics keeps the current anti-Russian coalition together, they do not stand a chance in production or logistics terms.
Er, hence “B36/35”
The B35 lost because of lateral instability - when trimmed to be stable it lost too much range. It also couldn’t carry an atom bomb internally. Let alone the guesstimated sizes for Super.
The B36 could carry *anything*
Mind you, at one point, there was a design for Super that called for a stripped down B36 to be used as a cruise missile to deliver it….
Edit: as Herman Kahn put it - “It seems that Stalin was more deterred by Detroit than the atom bomb. Fortunately we had both.”
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
Scotland during the referendum campaign was awash with YeSNP banners. They were FAR more numerous than pro-Union ones. You're kidding yourself if you think the SNP had a problem getting its message out. Their leaders whinged like crybabies when asked very straightforward, legitimate questions such as "What currency do you propose an independent Scotland would have, then?" I hope you're not one of those who believe that Unionists working for the colonial English overlords British government stuffed the ballot boxes. But you sound as though you don't realise you are insulting the Scottish people.
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.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
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?
I deliberated avoided critical comment on Hiroshima. I only questioned whether Nagasaki was necessary. I say it wasn't, unless you want to road test a plutonium bomb to compare and contrast "little boy" with "fat man".
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
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.
I'm blaming nursing strikes on unrealistic union demands, yeah.
Inflation? Fighting Putin and unwinding of lockdown - both supported by the alternative government.
Always a risk to try to make political hay too soon.
As the European Socialists and Democrats’ European Parliament group continues to grapple with corruption charges, the centre-right European People’s Party wasted little time in getting on the front foot. The party group pulled no punches, calling out the S&D’s “holier-than-thou” attitude and “hypocritical” lecturing.
The criticisms even received the backing of EPP heavyweight Manfred Weber. It’s certainly a powerful line of attack…
Or at least it was. Within mere hours of the statement, the European Public Prosecutor’s office announced it was probing two MEPs. One of whom is Maria Spyraki: a member of the EPP…
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The technical term is Quisling.
I'm not sure that comparing them to Nazi collaborators will encourage them to vote the way you want.
Always a risk to try to make political hay too soon.
As the European Socialists and Democrats’ European Parliament group continues to grapple with corruption charges, the centre-right European People’s Party wasted little time in getting on the front foot. The party group pulled no punches, calling out the S&D’s “holier-than-thou” attitude and “hypocritical” lecturing.
The criticisms even received the backing of EPP heavyweight Manfred Weber. It’s certainly a powerful line of attack…
Or at least it was. Within mere hours of the statement, the European Public Prosecutor’s office announced it was probing two MEPs. One of whom is Maria Spyraki: a member of the EPP…
Finally the rest of the country is catching up. It may only be the ASI for now but eventually this will become mainstream thinking and Labour will implement it.
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”
They still tell the story in the museum in Hiroshima. They also say that Kyoto was not nuked because one of the key Generals had spent his honeymoon there and didn't want to see it destroyed.
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.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
"Advantaged intake"? Sure. But the biggest part of that is their parents give a damn about their education.
It's not a question of subsidy, and portraying it as such is disingenuous - and, insofar as it betrays an attitude that the state has first right to the population's money, another deeply concerning 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: "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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
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.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The technical term is Quisling.
I'm not sure that comparing them to Nazi collaborators will encourage them to vote the way you want.
You are assuming that 55% of Scots in 2014 were Quislings. Not so. The vast majority were grossly misled.
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.
On reading this post I am erring on the side of idiot rather than genius.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
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”
What a cop-out it was for the UN Charter to include s107:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action."
... thereby enabling a blind eye to be turned to the crime against humanity constituted by the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed some still celebrate the criminal monsters responsible, whether politicians or managers or scientists, as if they were heroes.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
Indeed. Which makes it shocking that you are planning on voting Labour. That is exactly what the BBC wants you to do.
"Germany ups reliance on Huawei for 5G despite security fears"
To a cynical German, perhaps the choice is between Chinese backdoored kit and American backdoored kit. The EU is already looking to insist on sensitive European data not being subject to American surveillance laws.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
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.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and sharing facilities with the local community
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The enemy within, as always.
Trying to remember the last UK pol who literally used the term ‘enemy within’ about British people. I’m sure it’ll come to me..
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”
They still tell the story in the museum in Hiroshima. They also say that Kyoto was not nuked because one of the key Generals had spent his honeymoon there and didn't want to see it destroyed.
On the decision to drop the second one - that is incorrect. The details of the decision making process has been long known. See Richard Rhodes and later scholarship. The assumption from the start was 2 weapons.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
That's a fairly toxic perspective on the concept of a union, which is that you pay your subs, and when the chips are down, membership pays you.
The situation is fairly well documented - North Sea Oil made Scotland a net contributor to the UK. Then, when Putin and the Saudis got into a pumping war and the price of oil tanked (hehe) Scotland became a net beneficiary of the UK. Now, with oil and gas prices as they are, Scotland is likely to become a net contributor once more. When Russia comes back on stream, with other forms of energy provison having expanded in the interim, it's highly likely that Scotland will become a net beneficiary again. None of this is a theft by the UK, or a scrounge by Scotland - it is a Union functioning as it should.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
Indeed. Which makes it shocking that you are planning on voting Labour. That is exactly what the BBC wants you to do.
It’s ok @StuartDickson, I’ve been listening to Anas Sarwar, and realise that voting Labour is not a wise choice.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
Then why not allow Scotland to be independent and save yourselves some money? (If you really believe you are right.)
Chaps like HYUFD know that England expressed through the medium of the UK is already diminished. To be further reduced to being only one part of an island off the coast of Europe would be insufferable.
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.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
That old tale is bollocks.
The Lancaster couldn’t carry a Fat Man. It could carry a Little Boy, but not very far. There was no way to get a Lancaster from any base the Americans held to Japan. Even if they’d got the inflight refuelling sorted out, as for he Lincoln’s. Oh, and the max altitude and low speed with a heavy bomb load would have made them ridiculously vulnerable if they had got over Japan by magic.
The B29 was an aircraft on a much larger scale. Pretty much a realisation of the 75 ton bomber projects that the U.K. looked at and rejected as too expensive for the country to afford.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
Then why not allow Scotland to be independent and save yourselves some money? (If you really believe you are right.)
As I said as we are stronger together on the world stage and the inevitable hard border would damage both the English and Scottish economies, just Scotland's even more as most Scottish exports go to England
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
Then why not allow Scotland to be independent and save yourselves some money? (If you really believe you are right.)
Only loonies think people outside Scotland are stopping Scotland from becoming independent. The SNP could act tomorrow to trigger a Scottish general election. And if a majority voted for pro-independence parties there would have to be a referendum, and it could probably be held in the first half of next year.
The whole SNP political personality is based on a lying conflation of party with volk. It's truly vile to observe.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
In Scotland, it is a den of liberal elite lefties. It’s difficult to walk through the West End of Glasgow without bumping into a BBC luvvie. They’re unknown elsewhere in Scotland, except on the train to Edinburgh occasionally.
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
As people like Marr have said about the BBC, it isn't bias towards a political party, more an issue of groupthink of a lot of liberal mostly younger educated at similar institution metropolitan types. That leads to Commie Corbyn is bad, Brexit is bad (and I presume also break up of UK), that all immigration is great, people against it racist, LGBT+ issues are higher importance than perhaps among the general population, taxes to pay for public services good, but not too much on £100k a year salary thanks.....
New Labour got very favourable coverage as very in vogue with all idea above, and Cameron probably got an easier ride (than a Thatcher) despite austerity, because they generally fit the world view of lots of the BBC.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
Incorrect.
Which bit? I’m happy to debate, but you aren’t even trying to put a case.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The enemy within, as always.
Trying to remember the last UK pol who literally used the term ‘enemy within’ about British people. I’m sure it’ll come to me..
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.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
Scotland could have been independent by now if enough Scots wanted it in 2014. They didn’t.
If Scots had had an independent, unbiased media, they would have.
The BBC is now the final bastion. Looks a bit leaky.
The BBC is the enemy of Scotland.
In what way?
Their impartiality disappears when the union is threatened. I assume you don’t listen to BBC Scotland. It’s totally different in outlook and attitude to BBC UK, which is much more professional.
I’ll be honest I don’t, but I will say this. The BBC gets attacked by all sides. Lefties think it’s biased towards to Tories. Tories think it’s a den of liberal elite lefties. I wonder if you are seeing the same effect in Scotland? They do ‘try’ to be balanced.
Of course they’re not seeing the same effect. How could they be. They’re so much cleverer and more virtuous than us.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
I don’t have much sympathy for the view that killing people by nukes is somehow ethically different to killing them by conventional means.
Dead is dead.
Quite. I doubt many of the US troops scheduled to invade Japan shed many tears at the end of the war.
Let's hope Putin doesn't twig to that notion.
War (conventional or otherwise)? I'm with Edwin Starr.
Clearly the best outcome is no war. But in 1939 that decision was taken out of our hands, and for the US in 1941. Sometimes good people have to do bad things.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
Sweden has a far right party, the Sweden Democrats, with the balance of power, Germany has a bigger manufacturing base than England or Scotland, France saw Le Pen get over 40% of the vote in May.
Italy has a more rightwing government than the UK does, as does Poland. On current polls anyway Starmer will become PM and he opposed Brexit and Boris' deal
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
Regionalising some of the administration and representation in England would only work if it came in a huge bowl of fudge, meaning there'd be some policy areas falling to regional bodies, and there'd also be an English national body, and it would be much more complicated than say the current position with the administration of London. The kind of person who can't go on a date without explaining the D'Hondt method would be in seventh heaven, but nobody else would enjoy this other than certain public sector contractors and consultants. This is what Gordon Brown has proposed. I don't envy whoever has to try to sell such a package to voters in England.
@turbotubbs - I don't think the question of size explains why most voters in England at the moment don't want an English parliament. It's more that they don't want to encourage politicians to sh*tclown it up to the max, solving what for most people is an imaginary problem.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Perhaps, but this is still not an argument that the size of the English administrative area would bring it into an uneven conflict with the other parliaments, which is what you claimed.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Perhaps, but this is still not an argument that the size of the English administrative area would bring it into an uneven conflict with the other parliaments, which is what you claimed.
I think it does though, or perhaps it is that the FM of the parliaments, one represents 56 million, the others rather less. This is unbalanced. In the US there are similar challenges in representation with small and large states.
January 6 committee 'believes Trump should be charged with at least THREE crimes from riot'- including insurrection': Panel to vote Monday on referring him for prosecution
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The enemy within, as always.
Trying to remember the last UK pol who literally used the term ‘enemy within’ about British people. I’m sure it’ll come to me..
Hmm... not Arthur Donaldson?
Compare him with Captain Ramsay the Unionist MP. One got banged up on the basis of lies of his opponents and was very quickly freed. The other wasn't let out till the war was safely over.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. And that's only a difference in accent. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.
Comments
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022
I don’t have much sympathy for the view that killing people by nukes is somehow ethically different to killing them by conventional means.
Dead is dead.
"Germany ups reliance on Huawei for 5G despite security fears"
While nuclear bombs make the destruction of cities and infrastructure easier and more complete, the real moral consideration is whether doing the same by mass conventional bombing is any more moral.
While...
The Strand report shows that while Germany is not alone in increasing its use of Chinese-made RAN gear in its 5G network, many small European countries, especially the Nordics and eastern states like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, do not use any.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35
The amount of sheer monetary power the US had during WW2 was staggering. The war in Ukraine will be about three factors: politics, production and logistics. As long as the politics keeps the current anti-Russian coalition together, they do not stand a chance in production or logistics terms.
I have got a dim view of both sides. I don't understand how it can get to the point where they can be allowed to ruin the christmas holiday period, for so many businesses and people.
https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
What if we’d developed nukes by mid 1944? What would we have done with them?
I think we’d have wiped out, say, Munich and a couple of other big cities, with the promise of Berlin to come very soon - unless the Germans surrendered entirely and handed over all the Nazis
Preventing Stalin taking half of Europe as well. A pleasant dream
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-dac21de7abb6167bb604f5317aeda10a
Meanwhile the increase in hate speech on Twitter since Musk took over, against black people, Jews, Hispanics, and gays, has been enormous:
https://www.axios.com/2022/11/12/elon-musk-twitter-racist-tweets-data
It's easy to scoff at Thierry Breton, but wrong. Is Michelle Donelan doing anything whatsoever about the problem?
The B35 lost because of lateral instability - when trimmed to be stable it lost too much range. It also couldn’t carry an atom bomb internally. Let alone the guesstimated sizes for Super.
The B36 could carry *anything*
Mind you, at one point, there was a design for Super that called for a stripped down B36 to be used as a cruise missile to deliver it….
Edit: as Herman Kahn put it - “It seems that Stalin was more deterred by Detroit than the atom bomb. Fortunately we had both.”
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
Inflation? Fighting Putin and unwinding of lockdown - both supported by the alternative government.
As the European Socialists and Democrats’ European Parliament group continues to grapple with corruption charges, the centre-right European People’s Party wasted little time in getting on the front foot. The party group pulled no punches, calling out the S&D’s “holier-than-thou” attitude and “hypocritical” lecturing.
The criticisms even received the backing of EPP heavyweight Manfred Weber. It’s certainly a powerful line of attack…
Or at least it was. Within mere hours of the statement, the European Public Prosecutor’s office announced it was probing two MEPs. One of whom is Maria Spyraki: a member of the EPP…
https://order-order.com/2022/12/16/epps-holier-than-thou-partisan-preaching-backfires/
Finally the rest of the country is catching up. It may only be the ASI for now but eventually this will become mainstream thinking and Labour will implement it.
You heard it here first, a year ago.
It's not a question of subsidy, and portraying it as such is disingenuous - and, insofar as it betrays an attitude that the state has first right to the population's money, another deeply concerning one.
However we are all better together and 2014 was a once in a generation referendum
https://factcheckni.org/topics/economy/are-only-3-out-of-12-regions-net-contributors-to-the-uk-treasury/
"Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action."
... thereby enabling a blind eye to be turned to the crime against humanity constituted by the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed some still celebrate the criminal monsters responsible, whether politicians or managers or scientists, as if they were heroes.
It wasn’t a General, but the Secretary of War
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/profile/henry-stimson/ and he had other reasons besides liking Kyoto - again, as outlined in Rhodes
“The Making Of The Atomic Bomb” is still worth reading.
The situation is fairly well documented - North Sea Oil made Scotland a net contributor to the UK. Then, when Putin and the Saudis got into a pumping war and the price of oil tanked (hehe) Scotland became a net beneficiary of the UK. Now, with oil and gas prices as they are, Scotland is likely to become a net contributor once more. When Russia comes back on stream, with other forms of energy provison having expanded in the interim, it's highly likely that Scotland will become a net beneficiary again. None of this is a theft by the UK, or a scrounge by Scotland - it is a Union functioning as it should.
The Lancaster couldn’t carry a Fat Man. It could carry a Little Boy, but not very far. There was no way to get a Lancaster from any base the Americans held to Japan. Even if they’d got the inflight refuelling sorted out, as for he Lincoln’s. Oh, and the max altitude and low speed with a heavy bomb load would have made them ridiculously vulnerable if they had got over Japan by magic.
The B29 was an aircraft on a much larger scale. Pretty much a realisation of the 75 ton bomber projects that the U.K. looked at and rejected as too expensive for the country to afford.
The whole SNP political personality is based on a lying conflation of party with volk. It's truly vile to observe.
New Labour got very favourable coverage as very in vogue with all idea above, and Cameron probably got an easier ride (than a Thatcher) despite austerity, because they generally fit the world view of lots of the BBC.
War (conventional or otherwise)? I'm with Edwin Starr.
Italy has a more rightwing government than the UK does, as does Poland. On current polls anyway Starmer will become PM and he opposed Brexit and Boris' deal
@turbotubbs - I don't think the question of size explains why most voters in England at the moment don't want an English parliament. It's more that they don't want to encourage politicians to sh*tclown it up to the max, solving what for most people is an imaginary problem.
In the US there are similar challenges in representation with small and large states.
Such is the extent of my thrills, in late middle age. Fish fucking stew
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.