Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
The bill was to allow self id, and more, to mandate that the self-id is used in all things as the correct ID.
This would mean that any discrimination against anyone with self Id of X would be against the law.
It is not clear that Sturgeon would have had the power to make the emergency ruling she did on prison selection, under the bill. I think not - calling @DavidL ??
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
Most wars are determined by logistics. Get them right, and you’re about 70% on the way to victory.
R
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
Britain was no slouch in gearing up production either - by 1941 we were further along than the Nazis were by 1943 - by which time bombing was degrading their capabilities. While it’s a great story there was little chance of Britain losing the “Battle of Britain” and almost no chance that the Nazi’s could have invaded.
Without the Atlantic convoys we would eventually have been starved into submission.
I expect we'd have done what the Soviets did. Feed the military personnel and war workers, and let the rest starve.
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
Am I the only one who got very emotional hearing that speech . I’m in absolute awe of a man who was an actor/comedian became President and was thrust into a life unimaginable weeks earlier and who has become one of the great leaders of our times .
And what a lovely touch with the helmet and you have to love his ask for fighter planes !
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
There are very clear parallels between the role of Western Allies in WWII, and Britain's role in the Peninsular War (where in actual fact, Spanish soldiers did the majority of the fighting).
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Without Lend Lease we'd have been in a desperate position, and the freeing of German resources for the Eastern Front could quite conceivably have changed the outcome.
I don't know that you can say 'quite likely', but it's certainly possible.
I recently read a German focused account of Barbarossa (Barbarossa Through German Eyes?). Interestingly it stopped before the final push to Moscow, as by this time it was clear that Barbarossa had failed. It argues that it could never have succeeded - the space was too big, the German Army for the most part marched east, unlike the Americans, British and Canadians who moved by truck), the German tanks were not superior to the T34 and so on. If thats right, and its a pretty convincing case, the only way that Russia would have lost would have been if Stalin and the government fell, or fled and sued for peace (unlikely to be granted in a war of anihilation). There is no question that the western allies spent Russian lives to win the war and bought those lives with lend lease material. We avoided huge death tools in the west by letting the Russians die by the million.
The German invasion was a huge gamble, but nearly worked.
Stalin was convinced, when the Beria and chums turned up to dig him out of his funk, that they were there to shoot him.
Bear in mind, the German invasion was put off by six weeks because they had to deal with Yugoslavia when its pro-Axis Regent was disposed and then thought they might as well help the Italians in Greece.
If the invasion had been launched six weeks earlier, it is likely the Germans would have taken Moscow.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
There are very clear parallels between the role of Western Allies in WWII, and Britain's role in the Peninsular War (where in actual fact, Spanish soldiers did the majority of the fighting).
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
The Brits also supplied the plans of the Liberty Ships to the Americans because our shipyards couldn't churn out enough given the other commitments. They weren't an American design.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Great post. Some people have dropped a bollock on this one.
In the last few years the world lost Mandela and ERII, the last two great global icons of the 20th century. VZ stakes his claim to be the first of the 21st century.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
There are very clear parallels between the role of Western Allies in WWII, and Britain's role in the Peninsular War (where in actual fact, Spanish soldiers did the majority of the fighting).
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
British gold....
I always liked the story of how, when Wellington was marching through France, he had a problem with supplies.
He was buying them with gold coin, from the farmers. Rather than requisitioning them, as the French did
Some farmers were executed by local "patriots" for having British sovereigns in their possession.
So Wellington recruited the convicted forgers in the British Army to make French gold coins out of British ones. To add insult to injury, the result had a higher gold content than the originals - Napoleon had been debasing the currency.
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
It is difficult to see a way this war ends in any way that is good for Moscow. Even if they manage to achieve some form of “result” in Eastern Ukraine it will still be a weakened pariah state. At the very worst for Russia the whole pack of cards will collapse and the empire will disintegrate .
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
This, of course, isn't new rhetoric. This is just maintaining the line that Russia's "natural" sphere of influence extends to the lines established in 1945, and anything else is the West going back on its recognition of the natural order of things at Yalta.
This country is totally irrelevant to European security since we voted to leave the EU. Nobody wants to hear from us or takes us seriously. Everybody on Twitter says so. Also Lord Adonis, Tony Blair and Ed Miliband said we'd be, and when are they ever wrong?
Just like the 5 million unemployed that we've had for the last seven years.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Part of that, I guess, was ideology trumping strategy.
But another part of it was probably the recognition that it had moved from a blitz to a war of attrition, and a fear of what the Soviets could do to them if they didn't have a sufficient force there.
Many of the German failures of WW2 can be attributed to a more precarious industrial production and manpower situation than we imagine - not least the total lack of mechanisation in the German armed forces. For all that they had better tanks and armour doctrine in 1940 than the Allies, they had insufficient mechanised infantry right to the end of the war.
The lack of trucks was a consequence of a massive misapplication of industrial resources, which can be seen in almost every decision Hitler was involved in.
He loved the grandeur of large surface battleships, so the surface fleet was prioritised over the u-boats that could have defeated Britain. He trusted Goering, so prioritised production for the Luftwaffe over the army. Masses of resources were poured into ever more complicated heavy tanks, rockets, or rocket planes, that fed Hitler's sense of the dramatic and desire for a short-cut to victory, rather than simply producing more of the equipment that in sufficient quantity would have brought that victory. Large amounts of effort were expended in 1943 on the extermination of Jews that might have tipped the balance if they had been directed to the Eastern Front.
Perhaps a competent German leader would never have been crazy enough to start the war, but I think they might have been able to win it.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Getting the oil back to Germany would have been a nightmare, though.
Am I the only one who got very emotional hearing that speech . I’m in absolute awe of a man who was an actor/comedian became President and was thrust into a life unimaginable weeks earlier and who has become one of the great leaders of our times .
And what a lovely touch with the helmet and you have to love his ask for fighter planes !
You weren't the only one. Very much echoes of Churchill from my perspective.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
There are very clear parallels between the role of Western Allies in WWII, and Britain's role in the Peninsular War (where in actual fact, Spanish soldiers did the majority of the fighting).
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
The Brits also supplied the plans of the Liberty Ships to the Americans because our shipyards couldn't churn out enough given the other commitments. They weren't an American design.
Similarly, the celebrated P-51 Mustang was co-designed with a UK team because the "British Purchasing Commission" that were speccing it didn't really trust the US team who hadn't designed an aircraft like this before; Rolls Royce Merlin-66 engines were also licensed to the US for production, swapping out the original engine design.
The most notable thing about the Allies in WW2 is that they really did a remarkable job of playing to their strengths; sure there was jockeying for position and supremacy (especially in terms of post-war US strategy), but they really did collaborate effectively.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Part of that, I guess, was ideology trumping strategy.
But another part of it was probably the recognition that it had moved from a blitz to a war of attrition, and a fear of what the Soviets could do to them if they didn't have a sufficient force there.
Many of the German failures of WW2 can be attributed to a more precarious industrial production and manpower situation than we imagine - not least the total lack of mechanisation in the German armed forces. For all that they had better tanks and armour doctrine in 1940 than the Allies, they had insufficient mechanised infantry right to the end of the war.
The lack of trucks was a consequence of a massive misapplication of industrial resources, which can be seen in almost every decision Hitler was involved in.
He loved the grandeur of large surface battleships, so the surface fleet was prioritised over the u-boats that could have defeated Britain. He trusted Goering, so prioritised production for the Luftwaffe over the army. Masses of resources were poured into ever more complicated heavy tanks, rockets, or rocket planes, that fed Hitler's sense of the dramatic and desire for a short-cut to victory, rather than simply producing more of the equipment that in sufficient quantity would have brought that victory. Large amounts of effort were expended in 1943 on the extermination of Jews that might have tipped the balance if they had been directed to the Eastern Front.
Perhaps a competent German leader would never have been crazy enough to start the war, but I think they might have been able to win it.
The Germans did far better than they had any right to, given how Quixotic it was to fight the UK, US, and USSR simultaneously.
A further issue with German industry was that it had not properly adapted to mass production. Many German manufacturers still viewed themselves as craftsmen. They wanted to produce weapons that were perfect, rather than merely good enough.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
The Nazis, like Napoleon, thought you could run a wartime economy on the basis of plundering the defeated and living off the land.
It didn't turn out like that (although Napoleon has the excuse of growing up in a pre-industrial world).
A classic example is the French aircraft industry, the biggest in the world, in 1939. To their horror, upon gaining control of it, the Nazis discovered that it depended upon power generated by British coal imports.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Getting the oil back to Germany would have been a nightmare, though.
Hence the need to boot the Allies out of the Mediterranean, and to secure a route through the Caucasus.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Part of that, I guess, was ideology trumping strategy.
But another part of it was probably the recognition that it had moved from a blitz to a war of attrition, and a fear of what the Soviets could do to them if they didn't have a sufficient force there.
Many of the German failures of WW2 can be attributed to a more precarious industrial production and manpower situation than we imagine - not least the total lack of mechanisation in the German armed forces. For all that they had better tanks and armour doctrine in 1940 than the Allies, they had insufficient mechanised infantry right to the end of the war.
The lack of trucks was a consequence of a massive misapplication of industrial resources, which can be seen in almost every decision Hitler was involved in.
He loved the grandeur of large surface battleships, so the surface fleet was prioritised over the u-boats that could have defeated Britain. He trusted Goering, so prioritised production for the Luftwaffe over the army. Masses of resources were poured into ever more complicated heavy tanks, rockets, or rocket planes, that fed Hitler's sense of the dramatic and desire for a short-cut to victory, rather than simply producing more of the equipment that in sufficient quantity would have brought that victory. Large amounts of effort were expended in 1943 on the extermination of Jews that might have tipped the balance if they had been directed to the Eastern Front.
Perhaps a competent German leader would never have been crazy enough to start the war, but I think they might have been able to win it.
I think the key misconception Hitler kept applying was that they were still fighting the lightning war of 1940 not the war of attrition from late 1942 onwards. The tension between this view, and that of the army, was felt in strategy, industrial production, propaganda, and international relations.
(Sacrificing the Afrika Korps in 1942/3 being the best example of this on the military side, I think.)
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
You supported Mermaids. Good to see you've backed away from that now.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
There are very clear parallels between the role of Western Allies in WWII, and Britain's role in the Peninsular War (where in actual fact, Spanish soldiers did the majority of the fighting).
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
The Brits also supplied the plans of the Liberty Ships to the Americans because our shipyards couldn't churn out enough given the other commitments. They weren't an American design.
Similarly, the celebrated P-51 Mustang was co-designed with a UK team because the "British Purchasing Commission" that were speccing it didn't really trust the US team who hadn't designed an aircraft like this before; Rolls Royce Merlin-66 engines were also licensed to the US for production, swapping out the original engine design.
The most notable thing about the Allies in WW2 is that they really did a remarkable job of playing to their strengths; sure there was jockeying for position and supremacy (especially in terms of post-war US strategy), but they really did collaborate effectively.
Actually, the British purchasing commission tried to get North American to build P-40s under license. NA said that they could do better and faster with their own design. The higher cruise speed that resulted from the resultant low drag radiator/airframe design actually had Farnborough going "Don't believe that".
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
Forget about the culture war nonsense. There is an actual issue here, acknowledged by one Nicola Sturgeon. Or is she a fellow traveler with the extreme right?
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
I agree. It’s a weird one to use as a wedge issue. I would have thought if she was playing 3D chess and choosing an issue on which to create a constitutional crisis it wouldn’t be this one.
Not just the GRR Bill where Sturgeon is out of touch with voters:
A mere 8 per cent of Scots want a referendum on secession this year, according to the latest poll. 👇 How did the First Minister so spectacularly misjudge what the people want?
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
You supported Mermaids. Good to see you've backed away from that now.
As a charity, yes, but not the whole 'replace biological sex with gender identity, self-id with no controls, no debate' agenda. You can support the thrust of the Scottish reforms without embracing that.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
You supported Mermaids. Good to see you've backed away from that now.
As a charity, yes, but not the whole 'replace biological sex with gender identity, self-id with no controls, no debate' agenda. You can support the thrust of the Scottish reforms without embracing that.
Then you are supporting the amendment to the bill that Sturgeon rejected?
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
I agree. It’s a weird one to use as a wedge issue. I would have thought if she was playing 3D chess and choosing an issue on which to create a constitutional crisis it wouldn’t be this one.
I'm not sure. I think in the circles she moves she's among people who genuinely, religiously believe TWAW. I think she thinks by TWAWing she'll be hailed as a European Jacinda/Justin. TWAW may not be a popular position, but it is a very fashionable one. And look at the polite veneration that people who say TWAW are treated, and the opprobrium heaped on those who demur. I think she's seen an opportunity to make her opponents take an unfashionabke position and use it to her benefit, not fully appreciating the unpopularity of the fashionable position.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
Being on the same side as the public and not the activists is hardly a “wedge issue”. It’s hardly their fault their opponents have proposed a badly thought through bill, sought only advice from supporters (and not even the police!) and ignored and brushed away criticism of it.
A mistake constantly made by some on Left is to confuse an earnest, bland, hackneyed performance of goodness with actual goodness - and then to assume that those who refuse to behave according to this boringly one-dimensional template must be bad people. Infuriating and stupid.
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
This, of course, isn't new rhetoric. This is just maintaining the line that Russia's "natural" sphere of influence extends to the lines established in 1945, and anything else is the West going back on its recognition of the natural order of things at Yalta.
The only way Eastern Europe is ever going to be safe from Russian brutality is either (a) a spiritual renewal similar to Germany post-45 or (b) the breakup of Russia into smaller states. For either to have a hope of happening, they must lost this war badly. It needs to be seen as a disaster that Russians want to distance themselves from and blame on a handful of evil nationalists in Moscow.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
The bill was to allow self id, and more, to mandate that the self-id is used in all things as the correct ID.
This would mean that any discrimination against anyone with self Id of X would be against the law.
It is not clear that Sturgeon would have had the power to make the emergency ruling she did on prison selection, under the bill. I think not - calling @DavidL ??
Not the case. The bill changes the process for obtaining a GRC not the rights which come with a GRC. It would remain (as now) legal for a single sex service provider to exclude transgender people if it could be shown to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end.
There is Haldane to be clarified - as it will be imo - but that's outside the bill.
Surprised how many have an unfavourable opinion of Rishi. If it wasn't that he supported 'Leave' I would rate him as quite reasonable for a Tory. Light years less ghastly than Johnson and not nearly as arrogant as Truss
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
I’m afraid it just shows the remarkable bad faith of us Woko Haram types to even suggest that the motives of our opponents might be less pure than the driven snow.
Due to the incoherent clusterfuck of the right since their Brexit success it’s hard to believe that they could have lucked upon a successful bit of tactical cunning but it looks as if it might be the case. Small comfort but they at least can’t claim it as a bit of political smarts and instead have to bleat piously about the simple sword of legitimate concerns and trusty shield of women’s rights.
Surprised how many have an unfavourable opinion of Rishi. If it wasn't that he supported 'Leave' I would rate him as quite reasonable for a Tory. Light years less ghastly than Johnson and not nearly as arrogant as Truss
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
This, of course, isn't new rhetoric. This is just maintaining the line that Russia's "natural" sphere of influence extends to the lines established in 1945, and anything else is the West going back on its recognition of the natural order of things at Yalta.
The only way Eastern Europe is ever going to be safe from Russian brutality is either (a) a spiritual renewal similar to Germany post-45 or (b) the breakup of Russia into smaller states. For either to have a hope of happening, they must lost this war badly. It needs to be seen as a disaster that Russians want to distance themselves from and blame on a handful of evil nationalists in Moscow.
It is to be hoped Russia can get to (a) in an easier way than Germany did (two world wars, cataclysmic invasion and enforced partition).
I think there is a greater chance of (b) with all the instability that goes with it.
Surprised how many have an unfavourable opinion of Rishi. If it wasn't that he supported 'Leave' I would rate him as quite reasonable for a Tory. Light years less ghastly than Johnson and not nearly as arrogant as Truss
He is utterly useless though.
Being merely useless is such welcome relief, after what we have had to endure before. The two previous PM’s managed to be useless in far more dangerous and damaging ways.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
Don’t think Carlotta or anyone else is saying that. What is clear is that an easy right to change gender needs safeguards to protect vulnerable women and ensure that their existing protections continue to operate.
Put those safeguards in place and I for one have absolutely no problem with the bill.
You don't think anyone is saying "see, look at that rapist trying to get into a female prison, just shows how gender transition is a rapists charter" ??
I wish you were right about that.
Re safeguards, yes. There are certain things where imo biological sex is more important than gender identity.
BTW, the proposed GRC process, does it include a criminal records check, do you know?
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
No. Logistics. Germany couldn't support more than three divisions in North Africa anyway. No rail line in Italian Libya for one.
Second, there was little 'discovered' oil in Saudi Arabia in 1941. It was post war it really took off.......
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
The admin side of GP surgeries in the UK is just outrageous. The limited times many give for allowing you to book an appointment is a disgrace. And the people working at the front desk tend to be the worse "computer says no" people. They seem to regard it as a privilege for you to patients to get access to them, and any additional work to support patients is regarded as an undue nuisance.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Boris, for all his flaws, has been fantastic on Ukraine.
Given his extensive - and still mostly unrevealed - financial links with Russia in the lead up to the war, he had no choice other than to be.
History may well be less sympathetic.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
I do find it quite amusing that the Russians spent years bribing & co-opting UK governance, successfully buying their way into the highest levels & it achieved the square root of fuck all for them.
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
Don’t think Carlotta or anyone else is saying that. What is clear is that an easy right to change gender needs safeguards to protect vulnerable women and ensure that their existing protections continue to operate.
Put those safeguards in place and I for one have absolutely no problem with the bill.
You don't think anyone is saying "see, look at that rapist trying to get into a female prison, just shows how gender transition is a rapists charter" ??
I wish you were right about that.
Re safeguards, yes. There are certain things where imo biological sex is more important than gender identity.
BTW, the proposed GRC process, does it include a criminal records check, do you know?
"biological sex is more important than gender identity" - sorry, I don't think you would have said that a year ago. Having promoted the use of gender to describe what a person identifies as, the trans lobby has realised the error and is now conflating gender with sex (or even denying that sex exists). I think you are backing away on this issue a tad - good to see.
I heard that if a person changes gender a criminal record check does not go back further than the point at which the change took place - and so could at least in theory be used to hide prior crimes. I don't know for sure that this is true. If it is true this point alone IMO should force Sturgeon's resignation.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
IMO it's bad manners to charge for doing something like this that takes a few seconds.
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
The Nazis, with more sensible leadership, could definitely have inflicted much more pain and death on their opponents. But the existence of the Channel and the "never surrender" mindset of the British made it impossible to win. Even if they won the Battle of Britain, the RAF would have rebased themselves in Northern England, out of range of German bombers. Then they would have flown down to sink any invasion fleet. And the longer things went on, the more inevitable the Nazi economy would have come crashing to a halt, given how unsustainable it was.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
What's the general point of the form?
Just a record of her health history - vaccinations, medication she on (none) and whatnot. Not sure I agree with employers asking for this TBH.
Boris, for all his flaws, has been fantastic on Ukraine.
Given his extensive - and still mostly unrevealed - financial links with Russia in the lead up to the war, he had no choice other than to be.
History may well be less sympathetic.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
I do find it quite amusing that the Russians spent years bribing & co-opting UK governance, successfully buying their way into the highest levels & it achieved the square root of fuck all for them.
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
I find it similarly hilarious how much money Abramovich poured into English football.
Boris, for all his flaws, has been fantastic on Ukraine.
Given his extensive - and still mostly unrevealed - financial links with Russia in the lead up to the war, he had no choice other than to be.
History may well be less sympathetic.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
I do find it quite amusing that the Russians spent years bribing & co-opting UK governance, successfully buying their way into the highest levels & it achieved the square root of fuck all for them.
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
Perhaps they should have taken note from the Sandhurst bribery scandal years back.
Various Arab princelings attending Sandhurst had tried to bribe instructors to pass them for parts of the course.
The instructors had taken the bribes.
In every case where they had been bribed. the princeling in question failed the part of the course in question.
It came to light when some of the said princelings complained about their money being wasted.
If anyone had any doubt about the importance of complete defeat of Russia, Putin's circle are now talking about Poland needing to be "denazified" through Russian intervention. Poland!
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
This, of course, isn't new rhetoric. This is just maintaining the line that Russia's "natural" sphere of influence extends to the lines established in 1945, and anything else is the West going back on its recognition of the natural order of things at Yalta.
The only way Eastern Europe is ever going to be safe from Russian brutality is either (a) a spiritual renewal similar to Germany post-45 or (b) the breakup of Russia into smaller states. For either to have a hope of happening, they must lost this war badly. It needs to be seen as a disaster that Russians want to distance themselves from and blame on a handful of evil nationalists in Moscow.
The imperialist grip on the Russian psyche appears to be quite strong. I don't think even complete, abject, defeat in Ukraine will be sufficient to break it, though it will be a start.
I'd think that a stage of finding scapegoats to blame for the defeat will come first, followed by another attempt to rebuild the Empire.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
I agree. It’s a weird one to use as a wedge issue. I would have thought if she was playing 3D chess and choosing an issue on which to create a constitutional crisis it wouldn’t be this one.
The issue seems to me to be that she led herself down the garden path, utterly convinced this was popular and that everyone agreed with her [see: Twitter] and that the only people who'd object were dinosaur loons who could be dismissed for siding with other dinosaur loons [see: @Theuniondivvie ].
That feminists might have a serious point about concerns wasn't allowed to register until it was too late.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
IMO it's bad manners to charge for doing something like this that takes a few seconds.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
No. Logistics. Germany couldn't support more than three divisions in North Africa anyway. No rail line in Italian Libya for one.
Second, there was little 'discovered' oil in Saudi Arabia in 1941. It was post war it really took off.......
I suspect DavidL may have meant Persia which was a strategic target for AH as I recall. I presume there are alternative histories with Turkey coming in on the Axis side, ironically they may have been of more utility than Italy.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
Being on the same side as the public and not the activists is hardly a “wedge issue”. It’s hardly their fault their opponents have proposed a badly thought through bill, sought only advice from supporters (and not even the police!) and ignored and brushed away criticism of it.
A mistake constantly made by some on Left is to confuse an earnest, bland, hackneyed performance of goodness with actual goodness - and then to assume that those who refuse to behave according to this boringly one-dimensional template must be bad people. Infuriating and stupid.
Ah that hackneyed unherd drivelpipe rentpaying trope about the left. Only about the 15th time I've heard it this year - and not since Monday - so very much needed. Thank you.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
What's the general point of the form?
Just a record of her health history - vaccinations, medication she on (none) and whatnot. Not sure I agree with employers asking for this TBH.
Why TF should she tell her employers anything about past medical history. If they want to find out about her health then have her do a medical now (and at their expense).
That's crazy to ask that. That said, perhaps it is the norm; it shouldn't be.
Boris, for all his flaws, has been fantastic on Ukraine.
Given his extensive - and still mostly unrevealed - financial links with Russia in the lead up to the war, he had no choice other than to be.
History may well be less sympathetic.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
I do find it quite amusing that the Russians spent years bribing & co-opting UK governance, successfully buying their way into the highest levels & it achieved the square root of fuck all for them.
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
I find it similarly hilarious how much money Abramovich poured into English football.
He was attempting to buy respectability and to create a situation where he would be protected by the UK government, in the event that he fell out with Moscow. He attempted the later by creating a financial structure that meant if he went down, the massive debt that Chelsea owed him would cause a crisis.
Boris, for all his flaws, has been fantastic on Ukraine.
Given his extensive - and still mostly unrevealed - financial links with Russia in the lead up to the war, he had no choice other than to be.
History may well be less sympathetic.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is still better than doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
I do find it quite amusing that the Russians spent years bribing & co-opting UK governance, successfully buying their way into the highest levels & it achieved the square root of fuck all for them.
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
Or alternatively, as is rumoured to have happened with some in Ukraine: used the conversations with the bribe-givers as a rich source of intelligence. "You want me to do what? Okay." Followed by picking up another phone: "They want me to do this..."
Besides, all this stuff about Johnson and the Russians is just a sign of some Labour supporters' pathetic butt-hurt over Johnson actually having done the right thing wrt Ukraine throughout his time as PM.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
The admin side of GP surgeries in the UK is just outrageous. The limited times many give for allowing you to book an appointment is a disgrace. And the people working at the front desk tend to be the worse "computer says no" people. They seem to regard it as a privilege for you to patients to get access to them, and any additional work to support patients is regarded as an undue nuisance.
It became commonplace in around the mid noughties (and seems to be pretty much universal now) that when calling to get an appointment you get the “what’s up with you?” interrogation.
This is something I absolutely hate about our current system. To be fair, receptionists shouldn’t be put in that position either. The condition should be between the patient and the doctor.
I understand the concern around wasting appointments on the worried well or those with viruses, but I fear that initial hurdle also puts off many people who don’t like the fuss of going to the doctor, don’t want to have an argument with a gatekeeper about whether what they’ve got is “deserving”, and therefore a lot of preventable issues are created.
Another area where fundamental root and branch reform is needed.
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
The Nazis, with more sensible leadership, could definitely have inflicted much more pain and death on their opponents. But the existence of the Channel and the "never surrender" mindset of the British made it impossible to win. Even if they won the Battle of Britain, the RAF would have rebased themselves in Northern England, out of range of German bombers. Then they would have flown down to sink any invasion fleet. And the longer things went on, the more inevitable the Nazi economy would have come crashing to a halt, given how unsustainable it was.
BiB: This is the problem, The Nazis with more sensible leadership wouldn't have been The Nazis.
Some people like to make out like authoritarian dictatorships, having total control, are ruthlessly efficient but history has shown time and again they're anything but. As we are seeing in real time again with Russia.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
What's the general point of the form?
Just a record of her health history - vaccinations, medication she on (none) and whatnot. Not sure I agree with employers asking for this TBH.
Why TF should she tell her employers anything about past medical history. If they want to find out about her health then have her do a medical now (and at their expense).
That's crazy to ask that. That said, perhaps it is the norm; it shouldn't be.
Can't check the form now, as my wife has taking it in, but one question in the bit for my daughter to complete was a bit odd "Have you ever been sexually abused"?!
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
You supported Mermaids. Good to see you've backed away from that now.
As a charity, yes, but not the whole 'replace biological sex with gender identity, self-id with no controls, no debate' agenda. You can support the thrust of the Scottish reforms without embracing that.
Then you are supporting the amendment to the bill that Sturgeon rejected?
The objective, yes, but I'm not sure that amendment is the best way to get there.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
The admin side of GP surgeries in the UK is just outrageous. The limited times many give for allowing you to book an appointment is a disgrace. And the people working at the front desk tend to be the worse "computer says no" people. They seem to regard it as a privilege for you to patients to get access to them, and any additional work to support patients is regarded as an undue nuisance.
It became commonplace in around the mid noughties (and seems to be pretty much universal now) that when calling to get an appointment you get the “what’s up with you?” interrogation.
This is something I absolutely hate about our current system. To be fair, receptionists shouldn’t be put in that position either. The condition should be between the patient and the doctor.
I understand the concern around wasting appointments on the worried well or those with viruses, but I fear that initial hurdle also puts off many people who don’t like the fuss of going to the doctor and therefore a lot of preventable issues are created.
Another area where fundamental root and branch reform is needed.
Part of the problem is that the surgery is paid by government, not the people they are meant to be serving. Why keep patients happy when you get their money regardless?
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
I think, that due to rolling an endless stream of 6s, Germany nearly won. Russia cam near to collapse in 1941 - despite Barbarossa being a mad gamble.
It was all despite the things you list - when they stopped getting outrageous luck, reality and their own stupidity brought them down.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Germans made it to the Moscow suburbs in WWII. It doesn't take much changes to the timeline to them making it a bit further...
For example, the US and UK provided *all* the hi octane aviation gasoline for the USSR. It was only postwar that they got their cracking plants lined up to make it.
Vast amount of machine tools - in some categories, 100% of the tools and 100% of the tooling was Lendlease supplied. Without that, Soviet production would have crawled to a halt.
And so on in many categories - the % of USSR GDP was small, but LendLease was about supplying materials and equipment they were short of. Or literally didn't have.
The fall of Moscow, or even of both Moscow and Leningrad as it then was, would not in itself have come anywhere near making the Soviet government seek to agree terms with Germany. More than 1000 large factories were shipped eastwards. The USSR would certainly have continued fighting. Sure, they could have been defeated but the fall of Moscow wouldn't have done for them.
Do you regret that the USA and Britain gave such substantial assistance to their Soviet ally during WW2/the GPW? Or is it a very different Germany now but a very similar Russia, so western policy was good then (fight with Russia against Germany) and western policy is also good now (pointing towards fighting with Germany against Russia this time round)?
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
I agree. It’s a weird one to use as a wedge issue. I would have thought if she was playing 3D chess and choosing an issue on which to create a constitutional crisis it wouldn’t be this one.
The issue seems to me to be that she led herself down the garden path, utterly convinced this was popular and that everyone agreed with her [see: Twitter] and that the only people who'd object were dinosaur loons who could be dismissed for siding with other dinosaur loons [see: @Theuniondivvie ].
That feminists might have a serious point about concerns wasn't allowed to register until it was too late.
The amount of PB blokes that have a direct line on Sturgeon’s real motivations and principles is a wonder.
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
The Nazis, with more sensible leadership, could definitely have inflicted much more pain and death on their opponents. But the existence of the Channel and the "never surrender" mindset of the British made it impossible to win. Even if they won the Battle of Britain, the RAF would have rebased themselves in Northern England, out of range of German bombers. Then they would have flown down to sink any invasion fleet. And the longer things went on, the more inevitable the Nazi economy would have come crashing to a halt, given how unsustainable it was.
BiB: This is the problem, The Nazis with more sensible leadership wouldn't have been The Nazis.
Some people like to make out like authoritarian dictatorships, having total control, are ruthlessly efficient but history has shown time and again they're anything but. As we are seeing in real time again with Russia.
I agree, but my point is that even with better leadership, they would still be screwed. "Don't base a victory on knocking Britain out the war" should be a similar meme to "Don't attempt a land invasion of Russia".
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Germans made it to the Moscow suburbs in WWII. It doesn't take much changes to the timeline to them making it a bit further...
For example, the US and UK provided *all* the hi octane aviation gasoline for the USSR. It was only postwar that they got their cracking plants lined up to make it.
Vast amount of machine tools - in some categories, 100% of the tools and 100% of the tooling was Lendlease supplied. Without that, Soviet production would have crawled to a halt.
And so on in many categories - the % of USSR GDP was small, but LendLease was about supplying materials and equipment they were short of. Or literally didn't have.
The fall of Moscow, or even of both Moscow and Leningrad as it then was, would not in itself have come anywhere near making the Soviet government seek to agree terms with Germany. More than 1000 large factories were shipped eastwards. The USSR would certainly have continued fighting. Sure, they could have been defeated but the fall of Moscow wouldn't have done for them.
Do you regret that the USA and Britain gave such substantial assistance to their Soviet ally during WW2/the GPW? Or is it a very different Germany now but a very similar Russia, so western policy was good then and western policy is also good now?
Germany was an aggressive, imperialist dictatorship and is now a liberal democracy.
Russia was an aggressive, imperialist dictatorship and is now an aggressive, imperialist dictatorship.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Germans made it to the Moscow suburbs in WWII. It doesn't take much changes to the timeline to them making it a bit further...
For example, the US and UK provided *all* the hi octane aviation gasoline for the USSR. It was only postwar that they got their cracking plants lined up to make it.
Vast amount of machine tools - in some categories, 100% of the tools and 100% of the tooling was Lendlease supplied. Without that, Soviet production would have crawled to a halt.
And so on in many categories - the % of USSR GDP was small, but LendLease was about supplying materials and equipment they were short of. Or literally didn't have.
The fall of Moscow, or even of both Moscow and Leningrad as it then was, would not in itself have come anywhere near making the Soviet government seek to agree terms with Germany. More than 1000 large factories were shipped eastwards. The USSR would certainly have continued fighting. Sure, they could have been defeated but the fall of Moscow wouldn't have done for them.
Do you regret that the USA and Britain gave such substantial assistance to their Soviet ally during WW2/the GPW? Or is it a very different Germany now but a very similar Russia, so western policy was good then (fight with Russia against Germany) and western policy is also good now (pointing towards fighting with Germany against Russia this time round)?
Stalin was evil, but less evil than Hitler.
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons."
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
May be better to go private for that kind of thing tbh, NHS bureaucracy and risk aversion means they're unlikely to want to deal with it. Arguable also that it's not the NHS's job to handle admin health requirements of employers.
A previous job required a full medical exam, including some frankly quite unlikely problems. For some of it the private doctor told me she thought it was unethical to do invasive tests without a clinical need so just wrote on the form 'no issue noted' and that seemed to get me through.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
When you and @Theuniondivvie are of the opinion that the only people who are on the other side are the "BNP", "Trump", "InfoWars" and assorted other troglodytes then yes its certainly possible and there certainly is doubt.
Of course it shouldn't be playing out in any such sessions for any party and instead the legitimate concerns of both sides should be listened to, but the two of you in particular are never in any mood for that, hence the desire to mock everyone who disagrees as being a "wedge" or "InfoWars" instead of listening to their very valid concerns.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
Expanding on the point, wars are won by logistics, not men and wonderweapons.
The problem faced in North Africa was one of logistics. For Rommel to go forward, he needed fuel. That fuel had to come from Italy, transported by tankers. So you have three tankers laden down with fuel. They can go either to Tripoli or Benghazi. Go to Tripoli and one will be sunk by a British submarine, even though its a direct route. Go to Benghazi however, and two will be sunk as the route is longer and closer to the British base at Alexandria.
Get to the port, and thirty fuel carriers are waiting to transport the fuel. However, at Tripoli, only two full tankers have arrived and so only twenty carriers can be filled. They drive to just before El Alamein, using all their own fuel, and a further 15 full carriers worth of fuel anyway to just get there. Rommel gets 5 carriers worth of fuel for his panzers. He needs 20. And there are now twenty empty fuel carriers that need fuel to drive back.
Go to Benghazi, and only ten carriers are filled, who drive to just before El Alamein... arriving with 5 carriers worth of fuel. Rommel's still fucked.......
Rommel was brilliant. He got to El Alamein! But that's as far as he was ever going to get. It's why the whole North African campaign was a constant see-saw. The better you did, the worse it got. It's why a British advance to Benghazi was just as bad earlier in the war. Then Rommel's lines were short, and the British long. It wasn't until Monty came along, who for all his flaws understood logistics and built up, and built up, that he could break Rommel and force him back.
The US undoubtedly sent a lot of aid to the USSR during WW2/the GPW.
Fast-paced industrial growth in the USSR began in 1929 when the US didn't even recognise the Bolshevik regime. There was some assistance after 1933-34 (car industry, some in steel, etc.) but if it hadn't happened it's not as if no expansion worthy of note would have taken place. The Russians weren't complete fuzzy-wuzzies who couldn't do stuff without foreign help. Especially given all the labour "freed" from the countryside.
Remember the thesis that's being argued here: that the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US help. That's not true either of Russia or England.
Although I don't agree with a lot you post, in this respect I do (though I would have substitued the Soviet Union and United Kingdom for Russia and England respectively).
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'. There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him. Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen. But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn. Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing. Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan. Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
A question for everyone on here: I know troops from the empire did sterling, and often little-recognised work (e.g. Indians). How much did the Empire movw over to war work during the war years? I know Canada made tanks, and had a largeish aircraft industry, but what about India? Australia?
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
But you're asserting that Sturgeon is using it as a wedge issue! I suppose you're doing it because she is rather than to delegitimize your opponents instead of listening to them, would that be right? Me, I think you're conflating disagreement with not listening. And you seem to be claiming this prisons case shows all of the fears of the antis about what the bill will lead to are justified - even though the bill isn't passed and where similar has passed there isn't the evidence to show any of the fears crystallized let alone all of them. So, you know, it's a pretty extreme position you're taking as far as I can see. But fair enough, you feel strongly and I don't agree with those who say you bang on about it too much.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
Some think that Sturgeon is using trans as a nationalist tactic to use as a wedge should the UK government intervene. I don't buy this myself, I think she's a true believer.
I agree. It’s a weird one to use as a wedge issue. I would have thought if she was playing 3D chess and choosing an issue on which to create a constitutional crisis it wouldn’t be this one.
The issue seems to me to be that she led herself down the garden path, utterly convinced this was popular and that everyone agreed with her [see: Twitter] and that the only people who'd object were dinosaur loons who could be dismissed for siding with other dinosaur loons [see: @Theuniondivvie ].
That feminists might have a serious point about concerns wasn't allowed to register until it was too late.
The amount of PB blokes that have a direct line on Sturgeon’s real motivations and principles is a wonder.
Sturgeon is just one person, a famous one who speaks regularly on TV, so getting an insight into her individually by listening to what she says is certainly possible.
You and @kinabalu OTOH seem to want an insight into everyone on the planet to divide them into either the side of the angels, or the side of InfoWars, rather than listening to what they have to say.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back? Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it. Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed? Receptionist: Err. Not sure. Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job? Receptionist: well the doctor might charge Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
May be better to go private for that kind of thing tbh, NHS bureaucracy and risk aversion means they're unlikely to want to deal with it. Arguable also that it's not the NHS's job to handle admin health requirements of employers.
A previous job required a full medical exam, including some frankly quite unlikely problems. For some of it the private doctor told me she thought it was unethical to do invasive tests without a clinical need so just wrote on the form 'no issue noted' and that seemed to get me through.
This isn't an exam. A private doctor would have no knowledge of her past medical record.
The Beggar King is in a Ford Galaxy on the M11 so pb's 101st Chairborne will be getting excited over that providing a welcome change from the trans shit and HS2 minutiae very soon.
We - and Russia to, for that matter - are a nation that survived WWII only because of US aid, so it's a bit charmless to get sniffy about someone else in a comparable situation.
So the Russian nation would have ceased to exist during WW2 had it not been for US aid? What a loony.
PS Would it be gazetted somewhere if Johnson were to receive his US citizenship back, or is it only renunciations that get publicly noted?
PPS Some Ford Galaxies from the mid-noughties had front seats that could turn round and face the back. Now that's what I call a cool car.
The Soviet Union would quite likely have been defeated had it not been for US aid and the allies bombing campaign in Germany. Hard for you to admit I'm sure.
The UK would probably have survived but we'd have had to sue for peace and Nazi dominance over the whole European continent would have made our position perilous.
Phillips P O'Brien wrote about this on substack a while ago.
Long story short, the vast majority of German war production was devoted to fighting the Western allies, and not the USSR. The idea that the USSR won WWII for the West is a myth borne of a focus on numbers of soldiers lost, rather than on where most industrial production was directed, and the equipment it produced was used and lost.
Reading his book at the moment - makes a persuasive argument that traditional histories focussing on “battles” are missing the point. The war was fought - and won- in the factory. The Russians had no bauxite, so no aluminium so no aircraft - except what came by convoy.
I believe that it is called logistics. In WW2 the USA made every other nation look like amateurs. They built ships faster than the U boats could sink them, they built bombers faster than anyone could shoot them down and they supplied all their allies on the side.
And much of Germany's war strategy was actually about oil production, once they had failed to knock Britain and France out in a single blow in 1940. They were involved in North Africa (once it was apparent that the Italians couldn't hold down that front), and in the East, primarily to gain access to (routes to) oil.
The weird thing is that a small sliver of the force used on Russia could have had Rommel in charge of the Saudi oilfields. Really poor judgement by Hitler.
No. Logistics. Germany couldn't support more than three divisions in North Africa anyway. No rail line in Italian Libya for one.
Second, there was little 'discovered' oil in Saudi Arabia in 1941. It was post war it really took off.......
I suspect DavidL may have meant Persia which was a strategic target for AH as I recall. I presume there are alternative histories with Turkey coming in on the Axis side, ironically they may have been of more utility than Italy.
I don't think I've ever seen an 'alt-history' of Turkey in the Axis. Turkey wouldn't swing it for the Axis either. Eastern Turkey is mountainous and had little rail or road infrastructure in WWII. Whilst British forces were light, they were there. An ill advised attack by Turkey also would've saw the SU drawn in, who would've cleaned Turkey's clock, before demanding Kars for the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (And getting it).
"After the G-20 sessions were over there was a party at the West Lake. The Chinese had laid a transparent sheet over the water and ballerinas performed Swan Lake on the water. Theresa May repeated that it was so wonderful and that it was 'only possible in a dictatorship'"
BiB: This is the problem, The Nazis with more sensible leadership wouldn't have been The Nazis.
Some people like to make out like authoritarian dictatorships, having total control, are ruthlessly efficient but history has shown time and again they're anything but. As we are seeing in real time again with Russia.
Yes. Authoritarian dictatorships always get high on their own supply. The leader, who was good for the first few years then believes they are invincible and does stupid things. No one tells him otherwise because no one wants to die.
Presumably Boris's recent visit to Ukraine was part of the set up for Zelemsky's visit to the UK.
At any event, glad he is here. Britain's help for Ukraine is something to be proud about.
Is the Ukrainian leader shorter than Sunak? He certainly looks like it in the picture of them in the Graun, or is this from the PM's official photographer, who seems to have been selected specifically for his skills in this area?
They are both pretty short. Zelensky doesn't seem to care about it, though.
Z is short but stocky - the Oates in Hall & Oates template. Rishi is just very very tiny, which is harder to get yourself positive about as a man, I think. Still, it's far from his most pressing concern. That would be the ERG, I think.
Today was Johnson's day. Hats off to him if he laid the groundwork for Zelenskiy's visit. Johnson is standing loud and proud, he has with Zelenskiy's assistance overshadowed and further weakened the hapless Sunak. He's coming back, and he could contest the next election as the victorious Ukraine's Churchillian wing man.
Strange that Sturgeon - very able as she is - should stumble over a couple of things much less gifted people would avoid.
With GRR all you have to do to avoid trouble is to shadow what England and Wales is doing (don't ask, no idea), take any credit and blame any problems on Westminster. Standard stuff.
With GE as 'proxy referendum' you cannot win. If you poll 50%+ everyone else says tough, we never recognised this. If you don't poll 50%+ you have lost on your own terms, and your enemies as well as other parties will be quick to point it out.
Since the Brexit 52/48 vote, pressing for a referendum except when support for the change is so strong it's irresistible is a bit out of fashion.
Why is this gifted (though wrong) politician not doing gritty everyday campaigning to get support for independence up to 60-65%, from which position she could actually get what she says she wants? Since Brexit she is not exactly short of material to work with.
That’s the point Salmond was making on WATO yesterday - why pick a fight with Westminster over this, rather than, for example, something Europe related which could be tied in with the economy/cost of living?
Why are we ruling out that she wants to deliver a longstanding commitment that she also believes in?
Comes under an increasing reluctance to assume ANY good faith in the motives of one's opponents.
Which you both clearly demonstrate yourselves.
I mean the reason the move was opposed was not because people might be concerned about say convicted male rapists being allowed into women's prisons but because such people wanted to create a culture war, have a wedge issue, play dirty politics.
there is more of that on the anti (GRR) side than the pro.
Which of the concerns about the GRR Bill raised by its critics (and dismissed by Sturgeon as “not valid”) have proved not to be?
Well the bill hasn't passed so one can't really say. We need to look at what's happened in countries - Ireland being the closest to home - where similar HAS been done. What we certainly do seem to have in Scotland is an issue with risk assessment for prisons. Are you claiming that this specific recent case shows that all the fears raised - no more single sex spaces, women's rights destroyed, floodgates opened for predatory men to gain GRCs for nefarious purposes, end of sex as a biological concept etc etc - are rational and justified? If you are I think that's a stretch.
You claimed that critics were more driving the issue as a “wedge issue” but have no evidence - so now retreat behind “the bill hasn’t passed”. I ask again, where is the evidence that critics were driven by trying to create a wedge, or were their concerns “not valid” to quote Sturgeon?
Claiming it’s a “wedge issue” is another tactic to delegitimise your opponents views - which is why they weren’t listened to, which is why it’s in the mess it’s in. If you really were interested in trans rights you’d have listened.
Good to know that Alistair McConnachie of UK A Force For Good, Joseph Finnie ex BNP and Fox regular Andy Ngo supported the Let Women Speak rally on Sunday to show their concerns rather than use it as a wedge issue.
So mandatory fox hunting and animal cruelty? Mustn't support a cause that the Hugo Boss fashionistas like....
Yeah, you’ve tried that lumbering zinger before. The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
I am rather taken aback by the resistance we are encountering on this one.
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
When you and @Theuniondivvie are of the opinion that the only people who are on the other side are the "BNP", "Trump", "InfoWars" and assorted other troglodytes then yes its certainly possible and there certainly is doubt.
Of course it shouldn't be playing out in any such sessions for any party and instead the legitimate concerns of both sides should be listened to, but the two of you in particular are never in any mood for that, hence the desire to mock everyone who disagrees as being a "wedge" or "InfoWars" instead of listening to their very valid concerns.
That's what people like you do, characterise a pointing out of dubious fellow travellers as saying they are 'the only people who are on the other side', which is lying, which makes you a...?
Presumably Boris's recent visit to Ukraine was part of the set up for Zelemsky's visit to the UK.
At any event, glad he is here. Britain's help for Ukraine is something to be proud about.
Is the Ukrainian leader shorter than Sunak? He certainly looks like it in the picture of them in the Graun, or is this from the PM's official photographer, who seems to have been selected specifically for his skills in this area?
They are both pretty short. Zelensky doesn't seem to care about it, though.
Z is short but stocky - the Oates in Hall & Oates template. Rishi is just very very tiny, which is harder to get yourself positive about as a man, I think. Still, it's far from his most pressing concern. That would be the ERG, I think.
Today was Johnson's day. Hats off to him if he laid the groundwork for Zelenskiy's visit. Johnson is standing loud and proud, he has with Zelenskiy's assistance overshadowed and further weakened the hapless Sunak. He's coming back, and he could contest the next election as the victorious Ukraine's Churchillian wing man.
Noses out of joint in Brussels because London in ahead of them. Partly down to Brussels leaking the visit, so security concerns meant it might be pulled. But mostly because EU candidate country Ukraine...Johnson...Brexit...sloppy seconds...
Presumably Boris's recent visit to Ukraine was part of the set up for Zelemsky's visit to the UK.
At any event, glad he is here. Britain's help for Ukraine is something to be proud about.
Is the Ukrainian leader shorter than Sunak? He certainly looks like it in the picture of them in the Graun, or is this from the PM's official photographer, who seems to have been selected specifically for his skills in this area?
They are both pretty short. Zelensky doesn't seem to care about it, though.
Z is short but stocky - the Oates in Hall & Oates template. Rishi is just very very tiny, which is harder to get yourself positive about as a man, I think. Still, it's far from his most pressing concern. That would be the ERG, I think.
Today was Johnson's day. Hats off to him if he laid the groundwork for Zelenskiy's visit. Johnson is standing loud and proud, he has with Zelenskiy's assistance overshadowed and further weakened the hapless Sunak. He's coming back, and he could contest the next election as the victorious Ukraine's Churchillian wing man.
I am far from convinced that the Tories won’t try and get him back in early 2024 so he can fight the election.
I would have thought that fanciful make believe politics a couple of years ago, but given I was burned by the Truss debacle (utterly ridiculous to even suggest she’d be turfed out before an election, I thought, pre-mini budget) im not going to get burned again. In the modern Tory party, these things are possible.
Comments
This would mean that any discrimination against anyone with self Id of X would be against the law.
It is not clear that Sturgeon would have had the power to make the emergency ruling she did on prison selection, under the bill. I think not - calling @DavidL ??
https://www.thedailybeast.com/top-putin-ally-ramzan-kadyrov-says-he-will-not-hide-intention-to-invade-poland-anymore
It is critical that the Ukrainian war is seen as nothing but a massive mistake by the Russian elite and people. It has to bring about disaster for them. A ceasefire, small gains and anything they can spin as a victory will leave the bear intact and hungry for more victims.
And what a lovely touch with the helmet and you have to love his ask for fighter planes !
Britain supplied vast quantities of armaments, uniforms, food, and money to the Spanish and Portugese, a commitment that the French simply could not match
If the invasion had been launched six weeks earlier, it is likely the Germans would have taken Moscow.
I always liked the story of how, when Wellington was marching through France, he had a problem with supplies.
He was buying them with gold coin, from the farmers. Rather than requisitioning them, as the French did
Some farmers were executed by local "patriots" for having British sovereigns in their possession.
So Wellington recruited the convicted forgers in the British Army to make French gold coins out of British ones. To add insult to injury, the result had a higher gold content than the originals - Napoleon had been debasing the currency.
This country is totally irrelevant to European security since we voted to leave the EU. Nobody wants to hear from us or takes us seriously. Everybody on Twitter says so. Also Lord Adonis, Tony Blair and Ed Miliband said we'd be, and when are they ever wrong?
Just like the 5 million unemployed that we've had for the last seven years.
He loved the grandeur of large surface battleships, so the surface fleet was prioritised over the u-boats that could have defeated Britain. He trusted Goering, so prioritised production for the Luftwaffe over the army. Masses of resources were poured into ever more complicated heavy tanks, rockets, or rocket planes, that fed Hitler's sense of the dramatic and desire for a short-cut to victory, rather than simply producing more of the equipment that in sufficient quantity would have brought that victory. Large amounts of effort were expended in 1943 on the extermination of Jews that might have tipped the balance if they had been directed to the Eastern Front.
Perhaps a competent German leader would never have been crazy enough to start the war, but I think they might have been able to win it.
The most notable thing about the Allies in WW2 is that they really did a remarkable job of playing to their strengths; sure there was jockeying for position and supremacy (especially in terms of post-war US strategy), but they really did collaborate effectively.
A further issue with German industry was that it had not properly adapted to mass production. Many German manufacturers still viewed themselves as craftsmen. They wanted to produce weapons that were perfect, rather than merely good enough.
It didn't turn out like that (although Napoleon has the excuse of growing up in a pre-industrial world).
A classic example is the French aircraft industry, the biggest in the world, in 1939. To their horror, upon gaining control of it, the Nazis discovered that it depended upon power generated by British coal imports.
I'm not saying none of the fears are justified - I don't know enough to be saying that, and I'm no TRA, absurd thought! - but the specific prisons issue is wildly insufficient imo to conclude that all of them are. And I'm merely pointing out that both sides are using Trans/GRR as a wedge issue to some extent - and yes imo more so on the anti side. Evidence for this? Well for starters the number of reactionary right wing men we find there - blokes who in the normal way of things wouldn't piss on feminism or womens rights if they were on fire.
The point attempting to be made was that this was not being used as a wedge issue in a culture war. I’ll add you to the list of credulous folk who think that.
(Sacrificing the Afrika Korps in 1942/3 being the best example of this on the military side, I think.)
https://twitter.com/baddiel/status/1622896710887305216?s=61&t=0BcxPx82TojeuuBX9ST6xQ
"Ok, listen up peeps, how can we use this Transgender thing to peel away votes from the other side?"
Can there seriously be any doubt that the above is playing out far more in Tory brainstorming sessions than in those of LAB/LD/SNP?
If we can't win this argument on here we might as well give up and put the kettle on.
TWAW may not be a popular position, but it is a very fashionable one. And look at the polite veneration that people who say TWAW are treated, and the opprobrium heaped on those who demur. I think she's seen an opportunity to make her opponents take an unfashionabke position and use it to her benefit, not fully appreciating the unpopularity of the fashionable position.
A mistake constantly made by some on Left is to confuse an earnest, bland, hackneyed performance of goodness with actual goodness - and then to assume that those who refuse to behave according to this boringly one-dimensional template must be bad people. Infuriating and stupid.
https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1623315616357556224
There is Haldane to be clarified - as it will be imo - but that's outside the bill.
Rebuilding the various walls and regaining popularity whilst the Tories go back to 2005.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-64512690
Due to the incoherent clusterfuck of the right since their Brexit success it’s hard to believe that they could have lucked upon a successful bit of tactical cunning but it looks as if it might be the case. Small comfort but they at least can’t claim it as a bit of political smarts and instead have to bleat piously about the simple sword of legitimate concerns and trusty shield of women’s rights.
He's what people accused Starmer of being.
I think there is a greater chance of (b) with all the instability that goes with it.
History may well be less sympathetic.
My daughter has been accepted for a job but the employer wants a medical form signed by her GP.
My wife calls the Surgery:
Receptionist: Ok bring it in and we'll take a look
Mrs Stocky: Do you know when we'll get it back?
Receptionist: Can't say. The doctor is not obliged to sign it.
Mrs Stocky: If he won't sign it where else can we get it signed?
Receptionist: Err. Not sure.
Mrs Stocky: you realise that if he doesn't sign it she doesn't get the job?
Receptionist: well the doctor might charge
Mrs Stocky: that's fine, we are happy to pay a fee
Receptionist: but he's not obliged to sign it
Mrs Stocky: It will take him less that ten seconds. This conversation has lasted much longer than that.
Good grief.
I wish you were right about that.
Re safeguards, yes. There are certain things where imo biological sex is more important than gender identity.
BTW, the proposed GRC process, does it include a criminal records check, do you know?
Over on Alt-History, this comes up every two weeks. 'What if the USA stayed out'.
There is certainly an argument that Germany might've won, but I find it unlikely. This isn't just that Lend Lease didn't really kick in until 1943, it's as much as criticising the Germans as anything else.
Hitler decided it was a good idea to fight the largest empire in the world, the largest country in the world and the largest economy in the world all at the same time in 1941. For that, he sought the Italians (stop laughing at the back) and Japanese to help him.
Remove one of those three, and that still doesn't equal victory. It simply means a slower defeat.
Germany was fucked up under the Nazis. Now, before I say this, I want to make quite clear I think the Nazis were pretty much the worst regime in the world, probably that we've ever seen.
But this idea of 'Nazi efficiency' is total bollocks. Let's see:
Massive interdepartmental and interservice rivalry, undermining everyone at every turn.
Not gearing up for total war until 1943, despite starting the whole darn thing.
Not working with anyone who wasn't Aryan.
Spending resources persecuting and murdering Jews and minorities, including rail resources, when maybe transporting supplies to the front would've been better......
The Nazis lost the war all on their own. I'm not convinced they could've beaten JUST the United Kingdom or the Soviet Union on a one on one.......
Second, there was little 'discovered' oil in Saudi Arabia in 1941. It was post war it really took off.......
Probably would have helped if they hadn’t put their bribe-takers in an impossible position where supporting Russia would instantly out them as quislings & traitors to the nation of course.
I heard that if a person changes gender a criminal record check does not go back further than the point at which the change took place - and so could at least in theory be used to hide prior crimes. I don't know for sure that this is true. If it is true this point alone IMO should force Sturgeon's resignation.
Various Arab princelings attending Sandhurst had tried to bribe instructors to pass them for parts of the course.
The instructors had taken the bribes.
In every case where they had been bribed. the princeling in question failed the part of the course in question.
It came to light when some of the said princelings complained about their money being wasted.
I'd think that a stage of finding scapegoats to blame for the defeat will come first, followed by another attempt to rebuild the Empire.
That feminists might have a serious point about concerns wasn't allowed to register until it was too late.
That's crazy to ask that. That said, perhaps it is the norm; it shouldn't be.
Besides, all this stuff about Johnson and the Russians is just a sign of some Labour supporters' pathetic butt-hurt over Johnson actually having done the right thing wrt Ukraine throughout his time as PM.
This is something I absolutely hate about our current system. To be fair, receptionists shouldn’t be put in that position either. The condition should be between the patient and the doctor.
I understand the concern around wasting appointments on the worried well or those with viruses, but I fear that initial hurdle also puts off many people who don’t like the fuss of going to the doctor, don’t want to have an argument with a gatekeeper about whether what they’ve got is “deserving”, and therefore a lot of preventable issues are created.
Another area where fundamental root and branch reform is needed.
Some people like to make out like authoritarian dictatorships, having total control, are ruthlessly efficient but history has shown time and again they're anything but. As we are seeing in real time again with Russia.
It was all despite the things you list - when they stopped getting outrageous luck, reality and their own stupidity brought them down.
Do you regret that the USA and Britain gave such substantial assistance to their Soviet ally during WW2/the GPW? Or is it a very different Germany now but a very similar Russia, so western policy was good then (fight with Russia against Germany) and western policy is also good now (pointing towards fighting with Germany against Russia this time round)?
Russia was an aggressive, imperialist dictatorship and is now an aggressive, imperialist dictatorship.
"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons."
A previous job required a full medical exam, including some frankly quite unlikely problems. For some of it the private doctor told me she thought it was unethical to do invasive tests without a clinical need so just wrote on the form 'no issue noted' and that seemed to get me through.
Of course it shouldn't be playing out in any such sessions for any party and instead the legitimate concerns of both sides should be listened to, but the two of you in particular are never in any mood for that, hence the desire to mock everyone who disagrees as being a "wedge" or "InfoWars" instead of listening to their very valid concerns.
The problem faced in North Africa was one of logistics.
For Rommel to go forward, he needed fuel.
That fuel had to come from Italy, transported by tankers.
So you have three tankers laden down with fuel. They can go either to Tripoli or Benghazi. Go to Tripoli and one will be sunk by a British submarine, even though its a direct route.
Go to Benghazi however, and two will be sunk as the route is longer and closer to the British base at Alexandria.
Get to the port, and thirty fuel carriers are waiting to transport the fuel. However, at Tripoli, only two full tankers have arrived and so only twenty carriers can be filled. They drive to just before El Alamein, using all their own fuel, and a further 15 full carriers worth of fuel anyway to just get there. Rommel gets 5 carriers worth of fuel for his panzers. He needs 20. And there are now twenty empty fuel carriers that need fuel to drive back.
Go to Benghazi, and only ten carriers are filled, who drive to just before El Alamein... arriving with 5 carriers worth of fuel. Rommel's still fucked.......
Rommel was brilliant. He got to El Alamein! But that's as far as he was ever going to get.
It's why the whole North African campaign was a constant see-saw. The better you did, the worse it got. It's why a British advance to Benghazi was just as bad earlier in the war. Then Rommel's lines were short, and the British long. It wasn't until Monty came along, who for all his flaws understood logistics and built up, and built up, that he could break Rommel and force him back.
You and @kinabalu OTOH seem to want an insight into everyone on the planet to divide them into either the side of the angels, or the side of InfoWars, rather than listening to what they have to say.
Turkey wouldn't swing it for the Axis either.
Eastern Turkey is mountainous and had little rail or road infrastructure in WWII. Whilst British forces were light, they were there.
An ill advised attack by Turkey also would've saw the SU drawn in, who would've cleaned Turkey's clock, before demanding Kars for the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (And getting it).
"After the G-20 sessions were over there was a party at the West Lake. The Chinese had laid a transparent sheet over the water and ballerinas performed Swan Lake on the water. Theresa May repeated that it was so wonderful and that it was 'only possible in a dictatorship'"
Sporting declaration by Zimbabwe as well.
lolz
I would have thought that fanciful make believe politics a couple of years ago, but given I was burned by the Truss debacle (utterly ridiculous to even suggest she’d be turfed out before an election, I thought, pre-mini budget) im not going to get burned again. In the modern Tory party, these things are possible.