To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight limit, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
It's not just an oars depth. At low tide, the inshore span on the Barnes side is impassable to even a small boat. You can walk through in wellies. and not tall ones at that.
The main channel is quite narrow.
The problem is the tidal range.
A ferry is impossible because at low tide, it would get stuck miles from shore. If you dredge a "slot" for the ferry, it would get filled in/torn up by the flow/tide very rapidly.
Get some of that "Bailey Bridge Crap" (TM).
You have the Engineers do something on one side of the dead bridge, within a few weeks.
Then you set about fixing the old bridge, which was never designed to last as long as it has, and as you say can be a normal supported bridge with added towers and ‘cables’ for decoration.
You do wonder whether listed status is appropriate for some infrastructure.
The two concrete bridges (Rivers Don and Went) on the yet to be upgraded section of the A1 near Doncaster are listed, but nobody sane would want to keep them if the road is eventually turned into a motorway.
They may well be early examples of the type, but really? Like Hammersmith, they weren't built to last hundreds of years.
There could sensibly be a separate category for listed structures that focuses on aesthetics rather than structural materials. In other words you're free to completely demolish and rebuild something so long as it closely resembles the original.
There are good reasons listings don't allow for this in old buildings because so much of the history and patina of the original would be lost, but for works of civil engineering (obviously not mediaeval stone bridges...) it would make a lot of sense.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Absolutely. If they are prepared to insist on an EU candidate vs the best candidate for the job (and this is a general comment not a reflection on Wallace vs UvdL) then they are not serious about defence and we are better off acting independent
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
The Power was not an instruction manual, but a work of fiction.
Read it a few years ago - wasnt it making the point that women would also be inclined to abusing power if the tables were turned?
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed dry much cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
It's none of the Red Wall's business really.
The £200m is coming out of Hammersmith Council and the Mayor’s budgets, rather than from the UK Treasury?
If it’s from the Treasury, then it’s very much every UK resident’s business.
I think it comes from the Mayor's budget. Now the rest of the country could complain the mayor gets too much money in the first place but bear in mind London is hardly a net recipient of government funding. It also has 9 million residents, several times larger than the entire population of the red wall.
Interesting, because the Mayor’s budget for next year has only £93m in additional spending on transport - and I’m going to take a wild guess that most of the money is heading to cycle lanes and LTNs, rather than a temporary bridge in Hammersmith.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
I must say, talking theoretically, that I wouldn't be happy if I was being investigated for fraud and the police set up one of those tents outside my house.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight limit, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
It's not just an oars depth. At low tide, the inshore span on the Barnes side is impassable to even a small boat. You can walk through in wellies. and not tall ones at that.
The main channel is quite narrow.
The problem is the tidal range.
A ferry is impossible because at low tide, it would get stuck miles from shore. If you dredge a "slot" for the ferry, it would get filled in/torn up by the flow/tide very rapidly.
Get some of that "Bailey Bridge Crap" (TM).
You have the Engineers do something on one side of the dead bridge, within a few weeks.
Then you set about fixing the old bridge, which was never designed to last as long as it has, and as you say can be a normal supported bridge with added towers and ‘cables’ for decoration.
You do wonder whether listed status is appropriate for some infrastructure.
The two concrete bridges (Rivers Don and Went) on the yet to be upgraded section of the A1 near Doncaster are listed, but nobody sane would want to keep them if the road is eventually turned into a motorway.
They may well be early examples of the type, but really? Like Hammersmith, they weren't built to last hundreds of years.
There could sensibly be a separate category for listed structures that focuses on aesthetics rather than structural materials. In other words you're free to completely demolish and rebuild something so long as it closely resembles the original.
There are good reasons listings don't allow for this in old buildings because so much of the history and patina of the original would be lost, but for works of civil engineering (obviously not mediaeval stone bridges...) it would make a lot of sense.
A good idea. I fear the current set up goes against this - builders are discouraged from pastiches of bygone eras in architecture. So effectively you can either preserve a current structure, or see it replaced by a minger.
I must say, talking theoretically, that I wouldn't be happy if I was being investigated for fraud and the police set up one of those tents outside my house.
David Herdson had the best comment (on Twitter):
'I know in politics it's common to say that "X knows where the bodies are buried" but for the benefit of Police Scotland, it's just a metaphor.'
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight limit, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
It's not just an oars depth. At low tide, the inshore span on the Barnes side is impassable to even a small boat. You can walk through in wellies. and not tall ones at that.
The main channel is quite narrow.
The problem is the tidal range.
A ferry is impossible because at low tide, it would get stuck miles from shore. If you dredge a "slot" for the ferry, it would get filled in/torn up by the flow/tide very rapidly.
Get some of that "Bailey Bridge Crap" (TM).
Malmesbury, what is the best club to go to if I wanted to start rowing on the Thames?
I'd have thought you already got into enough rows over Trump on here.....
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight limit, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
It's not just an oars depth. At low tide, the inshore span on the Barnes side is impassable to even a small boat. You can walk through in wellies. and not tall ones at that.
The main channel is quite narrow.
The problem is the tidal range.
A ferry is impossible because at low tide, it would get stuck miles from shore. If you dredge a "slot" for the ferry, it would get filled in/torn up by the flow/tide very rapidly.
Get some of that "Bailey Bridge Crap" (TM).
You have the Engineers do something on one side of the dead bridge, within a few weeks.
Then you set about fixing the old bridge, which was never designed to last as long as it has, and as you say can be a normal supported bridge with added towers and ‘cables’ for decoration.
You do wonder whether listed status is appropriate for some infrastructure.
The two concrete bridges (Rivers Don and Went) on the yet to be upgraded section of the A1 near Doncaster are listed, but nobody sane would want to keep them if the road is eventually turned into a motorway.
They may well be early examples of the type, but really? Like Hammersmith, they weren't built to last hundreds of years.
There could sensibly be a separate category for listed structures that focuses on aesthetics rather than structural materials. In other words you're free to completely demolish and rebuild something so long as it closely resembles the original.
There are good reasons listings don't allow for this in old buildings because so much of the history and patina of the original would be lost, but for works of civil engineering (obviously not mediaeval stone bridges...) it would make a lot of sense.
A good idea. I fear the current set up goes against this - builders are discouraged from pastiches of bygone eras in architecture. So effectively you can either preserve a current structure, or see it replaced by a minger.
Some of those pastiches are now part of the fabric of the nation though - the British Museum wasn't built in greek times . Internationally Neuschwanstein Castle is a medieval pastiche.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
Golda Meir? "There is no such thing as Palestinians"?
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Yes, some silly missteps, mostly early on, but overall her record is pretty good, especially on Ukraine.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
The Treasury model for infrastructure all runs through London, because their view is that the total UK infrastructure budget is limited, so what provides the best ‘bang for the buck’?
The problem is, that it means the other 90% of the country gets almost totally ignored, and those 90% can vote you out. Hence Brexit, Levelling Up, and Red Wall, as political terminology.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Absolutely. If they are prepared to insist on an EU candidate vs the best candidate for the job (and this is a general comment not a reflection on Wallace vs UvdL) then they are not serious about defence and we are better off acting independent
What does acting independent mean? Leave NATO if the new SecGen is from an EU member? (Which they almost certainly will be.)
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
Yes that's true. Although the fact that Londoners are much less likely to oppose new building projects or hate on immigrants means that that will probably happen anyway, so we might as well have the infrastructure to facilitate it.
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
The Power was not an instruction manual, but a work of fiction.
Read it a few years ago - wasnt it making the point that women would also be inclined to abusing power if the tables were turned?
Yes. So you don't get to nirvana by simply swapping the power roles around. Though I'm not averse to doing it temporarily to make a point.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed dry much cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
It's none of the Red Wall's business really.
The £200m is coming out of Hammersmith Council and the Mayor’s budgets, rather than from the UK Treasury?
If it’s from the Treasury, then it’s very much every UK resident’s business.
I think it comes from the Mayor's budget. Now the rest of the country could complain the mayor gets too much money in the first place but bear in mind London is hardly a net recipient of government funding. It also has 9 million residents, several times larger than the entire population of the red wall.
Interesting, because the Mayor’s budget for next year has only £93m in additional spending on transport - and I’m going to take a wild guess that most of the money is heading to cycle lanes and LTNs, rather than a temporary bridge in Hammersmith.
What’s the timescale for construction of this temporary bridge?
Having just checked, it seems there's an agreed formula for infrastructure work of this sort which is 1/3 each for LA, TfL and central gov't. The cost of the bodges so far is 9m, the 200m is for a multi year alternative solution.
Nothing much to say on the headline topic, although as someone who joined SLab aged 16 I can't say I'm too cut up about any of it!
Anyone have thoughts on the report that Braverman faces a fight for a seat? Any chance she could lose the game of musical chairs in Hampshire? Would love to see the back of her.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
There's much to be said for removing things to de-induce demand.
Like the private motor access to Hammersmith Bridge and 72% of Paris's on street parking spaces:
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Rather, another example of small-minded Eurocrats, not prepared to countenance someone who might even be a better candidate for the benefit of all, because they aren't in their little clique...
I would pay a not inconsiderable sum of money for Alex Salmond's thoughts right now.
600k, perhaps?
But Salmond should be careful what he wishes for. He may not like the recent SNP, but if they blow up, then the path to Sindy goes back to near Square One.
If you seek revenge, start by digging two graves and all that.
It does not go back other than to real independence supporters , worst case is he will be back in parliament.
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
I really don't think anyone outside the UK, and very few inside the UK, are in the least bit bothered about a stupid announcement she made on vaccines which was never implemented and was rescinded within hours.
Geoff, unfortunately I am extremely busy at work so have not been able to look at much but I have been saying for some time it was coming and only a matter of when, will be many squeaky bums today for sure, who will try to save their skins first.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
There's much to be said for removing things to de-induce demand.
Like the private motor access to Hammersmith Bridge and 72% of Paris's on street parking spaces:
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
The Treasury model for infrastructure all runs through London, because their view is that the total UK infrastructure budget is limited, so what provides the best ‘bang for the buck’?
The problem is, that it means the other 90% of the country gets almost totally ignored, and those 90% can vote you out. Hence Brexit, Levelling Up, and Red Wall, as political terminology.
The irony of course being that Brexit has probably hurt the north more than London, while Levelling Up is just a vacuous slogan that has done the square root of fuck all to help anyone, and we have a Tory PM who actually boasts about redirecting money from poor to affluent parts of the country, while PB Tories lap it all up.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
I would say that's good news actually. He may not be a Disraeli or Austen Chamberlain, but he's not obviously malicious, thick, lazy and/or totally incompetent. Such politicians are in rather short supply in the current government.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
I really don't think anyone outside the UK, and very few inside the UK, are in the least bit bothered about a stupid announcement she made on vaccines which was never implemented and was rescinded within hours.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
She was however german defence minister.....remind us how she did there?
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
What a thing to say about our late Queen, her body barely cold!
Mr. Royale, at Triumphs, the glorious general had in his chariot a slave murmuring a reminder that he was mortal.
Not unlike the jester of medieval times, ridiculing the high and mighty.
Mr. Walker, are those same capitals opposed to non-EU weapons being sent to Ukraine?
The best I remember was the joke made by Philippe of Valois’ jester, after the Battle of Sluys
No one dared tell the king tge battle was lost until he cried out “oh, the cowardly English. They did not dare jump in the sea like our brave Frenchmen.”
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
I really don't think anyone outside the UK, and very few inside the UK, are in the least bit bothered about a stupid announcement she made on vaccines which was never implemented and was rescinded within hours.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Reasons of State remain the same whether the government is led a man or woman.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Excellent. So that's two. Plus Golda Meir. Plus Cleopatra. Four women.
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
I really don't think anyone outside the UK, and very few inside the UK, are in the least bit bothered about a stupid announcement she made on vaccines which was never implemented and was rescinded within hours.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
Yes that's true. Although the fact that Londoners are much less likely to oppose new building projects or hate on immigrants means that that will probably happen anyway, so we might as well have the infrastructure to facilitate it.
There is very clearly and visibly an infrastructure deficit when comparing London and most of the rest of the UK, I think that's uncontroversial and there's a consensus to change things.
I do think though that people underestimate the sheer size of London and therefore what a large proportion of UK population and GDP it represents. The best way to articulate this is perhaps to look at the London boroughs individually. Hammersmith and Fulham has a population of 185,000. That makes it larger than Oxford and a little smaller than York. Lewisham where we both live has 292,000 - larger than Hull, or Stoke on Trent, roughly the same as Nottingham. And there's bugger all infrastructure spending going on in Lewisham despite tens of thousands of new housing units being erected across the borough, the Bakerloo line extension having been regularly long-grassed.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
This could be the moment when independence support uncouples from SNP support. The only hope for the SNP is if they have a clear out of the “continuity” people, including Yousaf, and then have a new, fair and open, leadership election. In the short term, many independence supporters will vote Labour to help kick the Tories out. Expect crossover soon. If Labour want to keep these voters, however, they will need to offer at least some form of devo max. Otherwise, they will drift back to the SNP or join Alba.
If someone wants to support a pro-independence party but wants to switch from the SNP, there are 2 main choices at present: the Scottish Green Party and Alba. Both might be problematic for a floating voter. The Greens have hardline positions on a number of issues that may be out of touch with the average voter’s views. Alba is led by the very problematic Alex Salmond.
Might this change? Could we see some third significant pro-independence party rise up? Could Alba move beyond Salmond? Will the Greens moderate any positions to reach out to floating voters?
Will we get the truth on Salmond, be a massive government , SNP , civil service , crown clearout and doubt UK will want their part known.
Geoff, unfortunately I am extremely busy at work so have not been able to look at much but I have been saying for some time it was coming and only a matter of when, will be many squeaky bums today for sure, who will try to save their skins first.
You keep busy with all those documents in that tent, malcy.....
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Excellent. So that's two. Plus Golda Meir. Plus Cleopatra. Four women.
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
How many warlike women do you want us to list? There have been rather a lot.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
The Power was not an instruction manual, but a work of fiction.
Read it a few years ago - wasnt it making the point that women would also be inclined to abusing power if the tables were turned?
Oh, and apparently the TV adaptation has just been released on Amazon Prime.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
It's none of the Red Wall's business really.
Perhaps not, but it's a symbol underlining the dearth of investment anywhere but London, nonetheless.
To note the Scottish subsample polling average for the 6 pollsters who have conducted Westminster VIs including Scottish results since Yousaf was appointed:
SNP 39, Lab 28, Con 19, LD 5, Green 3, Oth 5
That is little changed from before his appointment. And being subsamples the weight of outliers remains potentially important, but the pattern of outliers is similar.
I suspect it will go a notch down again after this week, but there is surely now a fairly secure SNP base of those who voted based on national identity in 2015 and who would forgive their side things they would be outraged at if done by the other side. So where is the SNP floor? Possibly as high as 35%?
In that way it mirrors the Conservatives in RUK. Monopolising one side of a cultural and identity divide (Brexit in their case) while multiple parties fight it out for the other side. We've seen how the Tory floor is still probably around 30% despite over a decade of at best underwhelming government.
I assume the Tories also have a floor in Scotland too.
The Lib Dems seem to be nowhere. I think this reflects their uncompromising unionism. If you're going to vote for an uncompromising unionist you might as well vote Tory or Labour. A devo-max Lib Dem might peel off a few of those on the right of the SNP.
Lib Dems are fighting a battle to have a temporary motor traffic deck installed on Grade II* listed Hammersmith Bridge at a cost of £200m,the last I heard.
They could probably save £190m by giving the Royal Engineers a call, have them build a temporary bridge alongside until they can fix the main one.
That was suggested. The Thames at this point is shallow and not especially wide. I row under the bridge, on a weekly basis. I can quite often hit the bottom with the blades, if I get even slightly out of the channel.
Apparently, legal action from a small number of residents on both sides stopped any such ideas.
The simplest way to deal with that was to compulsorily purchase the houses in question - say at twice the market value. That would deal with any legal challenge or other issue.
That comment says so much, about why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
The Mayor and the DoT should have emergency powers in such a situation, and Parliament should be able to give them if they don’t already.
If the river is really an oar’s depth to the side of the bridge, it should only take a few days to have something useable - where useable means a 1.5t axle weight, closed between 02:00 and 05:00 and on Sundays, for inspections. They could possibly even plan a raising section to let boats through, a la Tower Bridge.
The other alternative is to dredge the river and run a ferry across, a dozen cars at a time.
AIUI it currently takes an hour to cross the river at peak times, following any reasonable diversion route.
There will be a number of complications to any of this: Piers in river will adjust water flow, potentially causing erosion/deposition issues with structures further up and downstream, as it's tidal. Services in and around anywhere you need to dig, that will need moving. Ecological issues Archaeological issues etc
But all of these are easily fixable given will, or even ignorable given necessity. And the proposed cost is staggering. We're really pricing ourselves out of doing anything in this country - and I fear the people wanting more legislation are fine with this.
Spending £200m for a temporary bridge in the capital does not look good from the Red Wall.
What percentage of these costs are the actual Engineering?
Writing from the Red Wall, for a London pissitaway story it's not a patch on spending £18bn on renovating the Palace of Westminster.
Ha, true. Or the £19bn on the Elizabeth Line when we can't get HS3. There may well have been a need for that but there's a need for lots of things.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
It's also simply a function of population density. Build something in London and there are 10-20 million people in the city and surrounding areas who might use it. That's why the Elizabeth Line alone is now responsible for 1/6 of all UK rail journeys. But agree 100% that infrastructure needs outside of London are urgent too. The rules by which spending is prioritised are bizarre, eg discounting infrastructure's benefits over two or three decades when we are still using the Victorian rail network almost 200 years later. We should have built a high speed rail network 40 years ago.
All that infrastructure does is suck more population into London, though.
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
Yes that's true. Although the fact that Londoners are much less likely to oppose new building projects or hate on immigrants means that that will probably happen anyway, so we might as well have the infrastructure to facilitate it.
There is very clearly and visibly an infrastructure deficit when comparing London and most of the rest of the UK, I think that's uncontroversial and there's a consensus to change things.
I do think though that people underestimate the sheer size of London and therefore what a large proportion of UK population and GDP it represents. The best way to articulate this is perhaps to look at the London boroughs individually. Hammersmith and Fulham has a population of 185,000. That makes it larger than Oxford and a little smaller than York. Lewisham where we both live has 292,000 - larger than Hull, or Stoke on Trent, roughly the same as Nottingham. And there's bugger all infrastructure spending going on in Lewisham despite tens of thousands of new housing units being erected across the borough, the Bakerloo line extension having been regularly long-grassed.
Indeed. The idea that Lewisham is getting some kind of prioritisation for infrastructure is laughable! Thanks to leaking water mains our local roads are virtually impassible, and we will probably both be dead by the time the Bakerloo Line gets extended down here.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks in the middle of a crisis.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
There's an element of you won't be sacked for buying IBM here too. You're unlikely to surprise many people by appointing UVdL to NATP sec general. She is an obvious candidate given her current role and prominence in building EU consensus (or as close as she can get with the likes of Orban involved) on Ukraine. Wallace has had a good war but he's much less well known or visible internationally.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Partisan post: looks like this could turn out to be a very good day for the Labour Party, both in Scotland and by extension the UK as a whole.
Not if it means the Tories make gains in Scotland. Makes our job in England and Wales that much harder.
Good morning
Not entirely unexpected news and very much as predicted by our Ayrshire colleague
As far as the political consequences it would seem a considerable win for the union, and labour gaining seats, indeed even possible conservative gains, but swopping SNP seats for labour does not reduce the need for labour to do very well in England and Wales to gain a majority
As I have often said, as have many others, a week is a long time in politics and of course events influence the future in politics as well
It’s weird, but entirely plausible, that the Tories might actually gain a couple of Scottish seats.
Lets not get carried away. The visceral hatred - or at best pained disdain - for the government extends north of the wall. Whilst I accept that an SNP / Tory battle is the Shit Sandwich vs Giant Douche battle mocked by South Park, there are other parties.
My new seat post boundary change will be the bulk of the old Gordon seat. So lets get that LibDem revival going - voting yellow as the alternative to the other two works up here as well as in southern England...
Are the Greens going to get painted with the shitty stick by the voters for being the SNP's lackeys?
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Excellent. So that's two. Plus Golda Meir. Plus Cleopatra. Four women.
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
How many warlike women do you want us to list? There have been rather a lot.
Have there? You are saying that the statement:
"Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world."
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
NATO Secretary General is a very different job to that of a national Defence minister. There's no military equipment procurement, no budget decisions to make to speak of, no actual military forces under their command.
It's a job that involves coordinating other senior people, persuading them to act together. You could make the case that managing to achieve EU agreement to multiple sanctions packages on Russia, and assistance to Ukraine, demonstrates the sorts of skills required.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
Buried in the article is another Brexit dividend.
“Then there’s the fact that some capitals would oppose a non-EU candidate, complicating a Wallace candidacy.”
Probably an astute move to tie in the EU into NATO, and specifically a German, so as to keep a unified approach.
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
Her complete and utter failure as German Defence Minister is an issue.
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
I really don't think anyone outside the UK, and very few inside the UK, are in the least bit bothered about a stupid announcement she made on vaccines which was never implemented and was rescinded within hours.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
It's not relevant to anybody who will actually be involved in selecting the new SecGen even though it was #1 in the leavers' Top 10 Anime Betrayals.
The new SecGen will have to be of sufficiently experienced at the highest level, acceptable to the EU, available and actually want it. And ideally female. That's a very short short-list.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
I'm currently on the scene collecting aerial footage as the Uddingston home of Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon is being searched by Police Scotland. Officers are currently searching the house, photographing items and moving some to a tent in the garden. #petermurrell [VIDEO]
I'm currently on the scene collecting aerial footage as the Uddingston home of Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon is being searched by Police Scotland. Officers are currently searching the house, photographing items and moving some to a tent in the garden. #petermurrell [VIDEO]
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Excellent. So that's two. Plus Golda Meir. Plus Cleopatra. Four women.
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
How many warlike women do you want us to list? There have been rather a lot.
Have there? You are saying that the statement:
"Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world."
is substantially wrong?
Violence and war I will give you but hatred is in my experience distributed fairly evenly across the sexes.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
So she generally had a good record, but the one time where her organisation was at the point where there was a massive emergency, and all the chips were down, she pressed the big red button?
What a characteristically bitter male boomer post.
She's speaking from an alien perspective to you because she's a woman in leadership who decided to show another way of being.
Thank god for Jacinda.
What a characteristically bitter sexist trolling post.
Not really.
A lot of ageing blokes on here parrot out tired old tropes, mainly because they are bewildered by alternative perspectives which may broaden their horizons aka. they are threatened by them.
Jacinda showed a different way of being. It's alien to right wing old men.
I'm not in fact saying she was perfect, far from it. But she brought a different perspective and that's a very good thing.
As are women in leadership generally.
The world would be a far better, and far safer, place if all men were banned from leadership for a very long time.
Preferably eternity.
Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world.
xx
A post on sexism that is, well, very sexist.
I am all in favour of greater diversity in general, and particularly more female political leaders, but the idea there should be a sisterhood hegemony and this would be utopian is just ludicrous.
The main reason there have been less evil women leaders in history is because there have been less women leaders. Women are not without vice and therefore by extension less evil than men.
It might be worth you looking up Winnie Mandela as an example and contrast her with her obviously male ex-spouse.
Boudicca wasn't famed for her gentle feminine ways, nor come to that Elizabeth
Excellent. So that's two. Plus Golda Meir. Plus Cleopatra. Four women.
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
How many warlike women do you want us to list? There have been rather a lot.
Have there? You are saying that the statement:
"Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world."
is substantially wrong?
Violence and war I will give you but hatred is in my experience distributed fairly evenly across the sexes.
Yep that is true. Let's stick with violence and war, notwithstanding youtube clips of Hartlepool on a Saturday night and Boudicca.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks in the middle of a crisis.
This is who you want running NATO?
There was a lot of bad blood between Britain and the EU at that time stirred up, I'm sorry to say, chiefly by Boris and his Merry Men. But the tit-for-tat pettiness that occurred reflected poorly on all sides. More recent developments suggest that such petulance is now behind all concerned, so I'm hopeful.
Geoff, unfortunately I am extremely busy at work so have not been able to look at much but I have been saying for some time it was coming and only a matter of when, will be many squeaky bums today for sure, who will try to save their skins first.
You keep busy with all those documents in that tent, malcy.....
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
So she generally had a good record, but the one time where her organisation was at the point where there was a massive emergency, and all the chips were down, she pressed the big red button?
Don't like UvdL but isn't that for the President and other government leaders, not the Secretary, to decide? So it is a bit of a red herring.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Surely cyber warfare should be our biggest concern? They're quite good at that and it would be colossally damaging to our economy, society and military if they pulled off a major attack.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
A bald ex Scots Guard whose BMI and IQ are the same number waits for the answer with anticipation.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
A bald ex Scots Guard whose BMI and IQ are the same number waits for the answer with anticipation.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
Ben Wallace for a start. Donald Tusk if he's interested.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks in the middle of a crisis.
This is who you want running NATO?
There was a lot of bad blood between Britain and the EU at that time stirred up, I'm sorry to say, chiefly by Boris and his Merry Men. But the tit-for-tat pettiness that occurred reflected poorly on all sides. More recent developments suggest that such petulance is now behind all concerned, so I'm hopeful.
There was a lot of bad blood between the USA and the USSR in October 1962. Thankfully, adults were in charge, and the crisis was de-escalated.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Is NATO SG really a role that calls for decisive leadership though? I always assumed it was essentially a spokesperson and facilitator for the members, the key decisions are made largely by the US but with input from other members.
Seems to me that actually the kind of person who has experience of consensus-driven politics works best in such a role. I don’t think the alliance needs someone going off in public on their strongly held opinions.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Surely cyber warfare should be our biggest concern? They're quite good at that and it would be colossally damaging to our economy, society and military if they pulled off a major attack.
I *thought* the Russians were very excellent at cyber warfare. Very excellent.
But if that's the case, then we're not really seeing it during this war. Both sides are annoying each other via hackers (seemingly both official government-hired ones and unofficial hacktivists), but there hasn't really been the scale or lasting effectiveness of attacks that I expected. Russia allegedly played a blinder during the first few days of the war, though.
But yes, we need to be very wary about cyberattacks as well.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
So she generally had a good record, but the one time where her organisation was at the point where there was a massive emergency, and all the chips were down, she pressed the big red button?
Don't like UvdL but isn't that for the President and other government leaders, not the Secretary, to decide? So it is a bit of a red herring.
And she didn't actually press the red button, she threatened to. Quite useful for NATO SG.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Is NATO SG really a role that calls for decisive leadership though? I always assumed it was essentially a spokesperson and facilitator for the members, the key decisions are made largely by the US but with input from other members.
Seems to me that actually the kind of person who has experience of consensus-driven politics works best in such a role. I don’t think the alliance needs someone going off in public on their strongly held opinions.
Von der Leyen has actually done a pretty respectable job on that score over Ukraine. She got it a lot earlier than most German politicians currently in government.
The UK aren't going to get it because Brexit, I think.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Surely cyber warfare should be our biggest concern? They're quite good at that and it would be colossally damaging to our economy, society and military if they pulled off a major attack.
That's actually on-going - Finland had a major attack the moment they joined NATO, for example.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
Ben Wallace for a start. Donald Tusk if he's interested.
The Polish government hate Tusk; zero chance. And it's not going to be a Brit.
Interesting... NATO want UvdL to move from rue de la Loi to Boulevard Leopold III to become SecGen and may extend Stoltenberg's term to fit with the end of her Commission Presidency. Mark Rutte and Pedro Sanchez are also in the frame but NATO want a woman and Kaja Kallas is too mental about Russia. If NATO are leaking UvdL she must be Biden's pick.
Answer 1: Bloody hell, can’t they find someone with a positive record in government?
Answer 2: If UvdL is Biden’s pick, that says f..kloads about where US foreign policy is heading. China is the new adversary, and Europe had better get used to defending itself against Russia and what’s left of its army.
It's taken them six months to get across the Bakhmutka so I don't think we need to worry about them turning up off Beachy Head any time soon.
That's a very ... interesting view. And a wrong/complacent one IMO.
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Is NATO SG really a role that calls for decisive leadership though? I always assumed it was essentially a spokesperson and facilitator for the members, the key decisions are made largely by the US but with input from other members.
Seems to me that actually the kind of person who has experience of consensus-driven politics works best in such a role. I don’t think the alliance needs someone going off in public on their strongly held opinions.
SACEUR calls the shots militarily. That is a very challenging job that needs a strong leader.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
Ben Wallace for a start. Donald Tusk if he's interested.
The Polish government hate Tusk; zero chance. And it's not going to be a Brit.
If they wanted to *really* mess with everyone's heads, how about Donald Trump?
Geoff, unfortunately I am extremely busy at work so have not been able to look at much but I have been saying for some time it was coming and only a matter of when, will be many squeaky bums today for sure, who will try to save their skins first.
In the 18 months I have been here you have been consistent in that message, in some cases derided for it.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
There's an element of you won't be sacked for buying IBM here too. You're unlikely to surprise many people by appointing UVdL to NATP sec general. She is an obvious candidate given her current role and prominence in building EU consensus (or as close as she can get with the likes of Orban involved) on Ukraine. Wallace has had a good war but he's much less well known or visible internationally.
Previous NATO Secretary Generals have almost exclusively had their most senior prior role as national ministers for defence, foreign affairs or prime minister. While UVdL was German defence minister, her position as EU Commission President is much more senior than that.
I think that to have a former EU Commission President as NATO Secretary General would be an important signal of how important NATO was to the EU. Looking forward to a future where Europe has to do more for its own defence, because the US will be preoccupied by China, I think it would help to have that commitment.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
So she generally had a good record, but the one time where her organisation was at the point where there was a massive emergency, and all the chips were down, she pressed the big red button?
Don't like UvdL but isn't that for the President and other government leaders, not the Secretary, to decide? So it is a bit of a red herring.
And she didn't actually press the red button, she threatened to. Quite useful for NATO SG.
She pressed it, and then walked it back hours and days later. That doesn’t work with *the* big red button.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
Ben Wallace for a start. Donald Tusk if he's interested.
The Polish government hate Tusk; zero chance. And it's not going to be a Brit.
Well we'll see. On your logic it's between Juncker or Barnier.
The role of SecGen of NATO involves lots and lots of diplomacy. Attempted dynamiting of an important agreement, without think through the consequences, in a a panic, is relevant.
Relevant but very minor (though it wasn't 'attempted dynamiting'). Your first sentence is the whole point, though. After initial wobbles, such as that stupid misstep, she's actually been doing pretty well on the diplomacy, cajoling and getting consensus on some tricky issues, and I think that will have been noticed.
hmmm
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Who ?
A bald ex Scots Guard whose BMI and IQ are the same number waits for the answer with anticipation.
It was however, a *really* good insight into the EU thinking at the time, when they thought the UK had managed to find a massive competitive advantage.
No, it was just panic in response to criticism that they had screwed up their procurement and were slow to start their rollout (which they were, although it didn't make too much difference in the end, since once they got going, they did very well).
Yes, they panicked and tried to abrogate an international treaty, because they thought it would make them look bad for a few weeks.
This is who you want running NATO?
Who said I want her running NATO? I'm just pointing out that her record overall is quite good, and that the vaccine misstep will have zero, literally zero, salience amongst those who make the decision.
So she generally had a good record, but the one time where her organisation was at the point where there was a massive emergency, and all the chips were down, she pressed the big red button?
Don't like UvdL but isn't that for the President and other government leaders, not the Secretary, to decide? So it is a bit of a red herring.
And she didn't actually press the red button, she threatened to. Quite useful for NATO SG.
She pressed it, and then walked it back hours and days later. That doesn’t work with *the* big red button.
That big red button, it's not like any other. It's totally unuke.
Comments
There are good reasons listings don't allow for this in old buildings because so much of the history and patina of the original would be lost, but for works of civil engineering (obviously not mediaeval stone bridges...) it would make a lot of sense.
I get the impression it is all down to the Treasury putting a higher priority on London because "productivity".
https://www.london.gov.uk/take-part/all-consultations/mayors-budget-2023-24
What’s the timescale for construction of this temporary bridge?
Well, is bricking it.
'I know in politics it's common to say that "X knows where the bodies are buried" but for the benefit of Police Scotland, it's just a metaphor.'
While obviously unsuitable to PB males of a certain age during to being foreign and female, I don't think she has done a bad job in her current role. What politician hasn't?
It is a vicious circle unless we want to end up with everyone living there.
It's called the exception proves the rule.
The problem is, that it means the other 90% of the country gets almost totally ignored, and those 90% can vote you out. Hence Brexit, Levelling Up, and Red Wall, as political terminology.
Anyone have thoughts on the report that Braverman faces a fight for a seat? Any chance she could lose the game of musical chairs in Hampshire? Would love to see the back of her.
Like the private motor access to Hammersmith Bridge and 72% of Paris's on street parking spaces:
https://park4sump.eu/news-events/news/why-paris-eliminating-72-its-street-parking-spaces
As is her previous track record of failure.
And her trigger of the article in the NI agreement, over the vaccine.
Do you ever think through before you type?
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-scandal-hanging-over-ursula-von-der-leyen/
No one dared tell the king tge battle was lost until he cried out “oh, the cowardly English. They did not dare jump in the sea like our brave Frenchmen.”
The original post said "men are responsible for virtually all the violence..." (my emphasis).
I do think though that people underestimate the sheer size of London and therefore what a large proportion of UK population and GDP it represents. The best way to articulate this is perhaps to look at the London boroughs individually. Hammersmith and Fulham has a population of 185,000. That makes it larger than Oxford and a little smaller than York. Lewisham where we both live has 292,000 - larger than Hull, or Stoke on Trent, roughly the same as Nottingham. And there's bugger all infrastructure spending going on in Lewisham despite tens of thousands of new housing units being erected across the borough, the Bakerloo line extension having been regularly long-grassed.
https://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.com/2015/10/macedonian-she-wolves.html
This is who you want running NATO?
"Men are responsible for virtually all the violence, war, and hatred in this world."
is substantially wrong?
It's a job that involves coordinating other senior people, persuading them to act together. You could make the case that managing to achieve EU agreement to multiple sanctions packages on Russia, and assistance to Ukraine, demonstrates the sorts of skills required.
The new SecGen will have to be of sufficiently experienced at the highest level, acceptable to the EU, available and actually want it. And ideally female. That's a very short short-list.
she hasnt got Merkel to strong arm her in
there are better candidates around
Question: does she, as a former First Minster, enjoy police security in the same way that a former Prime Minister of the UK would enjoy?
They'll have to move after this. Somewhere A Long Way Off...
For one thing, militaries can rebuild fairly quickly. A pariah Russia will not be a (conventional) threat to Europe for the next few years. But if it decides to ramp up its military expenditure, kit and capabilities, and if it actually develops a brain and learns where its military is going wrong, then in less than a decade it could be a significant threat. Especially if the west does not invest. Russia has historically down some of this stuff *very* well, and I have no doubt they could again.
And that's just militarily. We've seen time and time again the way Russia interferes abroad - from elections to Salisbury.
Europe (and the UK) need to take these threats seriously. I don't think UvDL would, as it requires a leader, not a lowest-common denominator consensus taker.
Seems to me that actually the kind of person who has experience of consensus-driven politics works best in such a role. I don’t think the alliance needs someone going off in public on their strongly held opinions.
@ScotNational
Humza Yousaf has denied that the arrest of Peter Murrell was the 'real reason' Nicola Sturgeon resigned
The First Minister defended the legacy of his predecessor, saying Sturgeon’s record stood for itself
But if that's the case, then we're not really seeing it during this war. Both sides are annoying each other via hackers (seemingly both official government-hired ones and unofficial hacktivists), but there hasn't really been the scale or lasting effectiveness of attacks that I expected. Russia allegedly played a blinder during the first few days of the war, though.
But yes, we need to be very wary about cyberattacks as well.
She got it a lot earlier than most German politicians currently in government.
The UK aren't going to get it because Brexit, I think.
And it's not going to be a Brit.
You called it right when she stood down too.
I think that to have a former EU Commission President as NATO Secretary General would be an important signal of how important NATO was to the EU. Looking forward to a future where Europe has to do more for its own defence, because the US will be preoccupied by China, I think it would help to have that commitment.