Regarding the latest in long line of Putin-bot draft-dodgers hoping that their typing skills can keep them from the Bakhmut meat grinder -
Looking over posts by "Theweb" since he first started infesting PB (at least under that moniker) two days ago, started out reasonable, indeed faintly positive. Or rather subtle as CR just said.
Appears that it was when Tw started on anti-depressant kick, that Smithson the Younger smelled this rat.
Note that "Theweb" achieved 28 likes during brief career here. Moral - PB likers, beware of what you like!
Seems that we must now react to new posters, the same way that Allied POWs used to greet new arrivals to the Stalag: with wariness until and IF they are vetted. Sometimes that only takes a few comments. In this case, a wee bit longer.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Crete was as good an example of command incompetence and collapse as any, despite having intelligence warning. It inspired Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, in part.
Despite the recurring meme that Russia promotes Scottish secession, here's a proud Unionist pooping out Kremlin talking points. Won't be long before he's doing the whole 'Ukraine is actually part of Russia' schtik (unless he's sectioned first).
I wonder with these types if they were always a bit loony,and it only really comes out once they've had a taste of celebrity outside their initial fields, or if its a natural performance consequence of liking the online furore that occurs when they do it.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
and let's not forget Starmer retreating from Corbyn.
I'm absolutely knackered from my French self-defence class last night.
I've never run so far in all my life.
Do you really have so little going for you that the only way you can feel good about yourself is by posting unfunny stuff trying to feel superior to the French?
He's quite happy to post stuff on why he Germans are wankers too.
Nah, I love Germans and Germany, even before Klopp.
Yes but theyve gone seriously off the boil of late.
They made one huge mistake.
Like Sturgeon, Merkel’s reputation has collapsed rapidly.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Indeed, it is a real shame that Russia for instance has retreated successfully in several instances.
Regarding the latest in long line of Putin-bot draft-dodgers hoping that their typing skills can keep them from the Bakhmut meat grinder -
Looking over posts by "Theweb" since he first started infesting PB (at least under that moniker) two days ago, started out reasonable, indeed faintly positive. Or rather subtle as CR just said.
Appears that it was when Tw started on anti-depressant kick, that Smithson the Younger smelled this rat.
Note that "Theweb" achieved 28 likes during brief career here. Moral - PB likers, beware of what you like!
Seems that we must now react to new posters, the same way that Allied POWs used to greet new arrivals to the Stalag: with wariness until and IF they are vetted. Sometimes that only takes a few comments. In this case, a wee bit longer.
It looks as though their comments were erased completely, rather than just a normal ban.
@giorgiameloni Many thanks @KemiBadenoch. It was a great pleasure to meet you. Italy and the United Kingdom are linked by common values and interests and I am sure that the work we are doing for Italian and British companies can further strengthen our collaboration in many promising sectors.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
An organised retreat under fire is said to be one if the hardest skills.
Indeed, two thirds of the seats in the Assembly reversing the 2018 result. It's been a long political road for Oscar Temaru, the founder and President of the Tavini Party since he founded the party (which was then known as the Polynesian Liberation Front) in the 1970s. They've shared power in coalitions but this is the first time they've won an outright majority.
The question is where do they go from here and how will France react?
Anti-independence parties however, won the majority of votes, so a referendum is not going to be won, any time soon.
TBH, I can't see why any overseas territory would wish to break from France. The deal they get is incredible.
Agreed, but I'm not sure it always works that way.
Pride has no price.
It's basically a choice between living in a first world nation or a third world kleptocracy. It's surprising how many would prefer the latter.
Mauritius is not a third world kleptocracy. Nor is Singapore. Nor is Brunei
Interestingly, though, none of those have human rights to what we'd call Western standards.
Singapore has just ruthlessly executed one guy who got caught with 2 pounds of gear.
The Mauritians would point to Elizabeth II's governments treatment of the Chagos Islanders if you started talking about 'Western standards' of human rights.
Would you like to live under Chinese standards of governance?
Of course not. Doesn't make our treatment of the Chagos Islanders any less shameful.
Ok, but you seem much more interested in Whataboutery rather than engaging with it.
The Chinese government does Chagos style removals all the time. Only the bigger stuff, such as annihilating Tibet culturally and ethnically, gets even brief notice.
What we're seeing here is how some on the Left (not all) are far more comfortable on safe ground of critiquing historical actions by Britain than they are discussing the far bigger and more extensive crimes, and much more scary developments, in the contemporary world conducted by totalitarian states.
Why?
Because to do so would mean facing up to them and taking their minds to some uncomfortable places, and they'd far rather not have to do that.
It's a thing called Sovereignty. We are responsible for the actions of our own state, but not for the internal actions of other states.
Of course I am a great believer in international organisations moderating Sovereignty and where necessary actively spreading democracy, human rights and other forms of freedom.
As long as Britain isn't involved, eh?
You have a deep sense of shame about your own country, and believe it's damned. The only engagement you want is to atone for sins and pass the buck to others.
I have nothing but contempt for this point of view.
No, I am very proud of Britain. In particular I take pride in our country because it is free enough, and self confident enough to re-examine our past and to acknowledge our own dark side as a nation.
No, you're not. You never say anything even vaguely patriotic about Britain on here, what you think we stand for, or the positive role you think we should play in future. You exhibit precisely zero self-confidence because it's intrigue with no purpose except to purify yourself.
All you're interested in is self-flagellation, shame, and coping out of the difficult choices.
That's a load of bat-shit from you, CR.
Nope, the bat-shit is from him; not me.
It's entirely open to @Foxy to show us what he loves about Britain rather than what he's ashamed about - to try and cop-out by saying that what he loves about Britain is that we're not ashamed to be ashamed isn't an answer.
If you're going to criticise your past it has to be with deep love and with a mind to building a constructive future, with suggestions to boot.
Otherwise I'm perfectly entitled to call out anti-patriotism and self-haters when I see it.
You perfectly entitled to say what you like.
But your policing of others’ discourse could fairly be characterised as batshit.
And, it wouldn't have happened if he'd engaged with the subject matter rather than Whatabouting with Britain's history instead, as he so often does.
He has only himself to blame.
Strange, the only history that I have mentioned outside my last post was the Opium Wars in one sentence.
I don't think the Opium Wars require a lot of dissecting to conclude that the British Empire had a very dark side.
We weren't talking about the British Empire.
We were talking about the challenges of this century.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
@giorgiameloni Many thanks @KemiBadenoch. It was a great pleasure to meet you. Italy and the United Kingdom are linked by common values and interests and I am sure that the work we are doing for Italian and British companies can further strengthen our collaboration in many promising sectors.
I'm absolutely knackered from my French self-defence class last night.
I've never run so far in all my life.
Do you really have so little going for you that the only way you can feel good about yourself is by posting unfunny stuff trying to feel superior to the French?
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Crete was as good an example of command incompetence and collapse as any, despite having intelligence warning. It inspired Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, in part.
Arguably, in Crete, we tactically won.
Like you say, command incompetence turned it into a defeat.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
An organised retreat under fire is said to be one if the hardest skills.
Please don't make any analogies to the Conservative Party.
@giorgiameloni Many thanks @KemiBadenoch. It was a great pleasure to meet you. Italy and the United Kingdom are linked by common values and interests and I am sure that the work we are doing for Italian and British companies can further strengthen our collaboration in many promising sectors.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Crete was as good an example of command incompetence and collapse as any, despite having intelligence warning. It inspired Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, in part.
IIRC, part of the issue re: Crete 1941 was that commanding general was concerned with NOT tipping off Germans, that Allies were reading their top-secret communications via Enigma? Though for sure this was compounded by other command mistakes.
BTW, one notable retreat involving British was Korea 1950, during Chosen Reservoir campaign. Royal Marine contingent was only small part of UN force composed mostly of US Marines. However, it played an absolutely critical role in holding Hung-Nam against massive Chinese attack (Task Force Drysdale) thus keeping the line of retreat open.
Of course, official position of USMC was, and still is, that there was NO retreat. Instead, advancing to the rear!
Despite the recurring meme that Russia promotes Scottish secession, here's a proud Unionist pooping out Kremlin talking points. Won't be long before he's doing the whole 'Ukraine is actually part of Russia' schtik (unless he's sectioned first).
I wonder with these types if they were always a bit loony,and it only really comes out once they've had a taste of celebrity outside their initial fields, or if its a natural performance consequence of liking the online furore that occurs when they do it.
Neil Oliver is just the opposite of Jo Maugham.
Social media can really corrode.
For all our faults, at least we all stay on here and engage with the other side - and keep coming back to do so - even if we sometimes lose our cool.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
Then there’s desperate battling defence: battle of the Marne, Sedan, Stalingrad, Berlin, now Bakhmut. Sometimes it leads ultimately to defeat, sometimes to stalemate or a turning point.
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at +10%, up five points from last week. 39% approve of Starmer’s job performance (+5), while 29% disapprove (–).
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of -5%, up one point from our poll last Sunday, and the highest net approval rating he has held since 3 January. Yesterday’s poll finds 35% approving of his overall job performance (+2) against 40% (+1) disapproving.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
An organised retreat under fire is said to be one if the hardest skills.
Please don't make any analogies to the Conservative Party.
The snooker final is fantastic, particularly Brecel's shotmaking
It is. I hope he wins it. He really deserves to. The final evening session of the Final is unique though. The dinner suits, the ballgowns, different lighting, different music, the trophy right there on display, everything a touch more formal and 'stiff' and yet at the same time turbocharged with tension. Can he stay as chilled and superfluent as he's been thus far? If he can, he wins and probably by 5 or 6. But if he can't and his level drops a notch ... well it's Mark Selby he's playing and we know what that means.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Indeed, it is a real shame that Russia for instance has retreated successfully in several instances.
Yes, the most successful bits of Russian military command in the SMO have been its retreats, from Kyiv, from Cherniv, from Kharkiv, from Lyman and from Kherson. Each time they have successfully withdrawn the bulk of their forces, albeit abandoning many heavy weapons and vehicles. I hope they keep up their retreating for the remainder of the conflict.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Crete was as good an example of command incompetence and collapse as any, despite having intelligence warning. It inspired Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, in part.
IIRC, part of the issue re: Crete 1941 was that commanding general was concerned with NOT tipping off Germans, that Allies were reading their top-secret communications via Enigma? Though for sure this was compounded by other command mistakes.
BTW, one notable retreat involving British was Korea 1950, during Chosen Reservoir campaign. Royal Marine contingent was only small part of UN force composed mostly of US Marines. However, it played an absolutely critical role in holding Hung-Nam against massive Chinese attack (Task Force Drysdale) thus keeping the line of retreat open.
Of course, official position of USMC was, and still is, that there was NO retreat. Instead, advancing to the rear!
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Indeed, it is a real shame that Russia for instance has retreated successfully in several instances.
Yes, the most successful bits of Russian military command in the SMO have been its retreats, from Kyiv, from Cherniv, from Kharkiv, from Lyman and from Kherson. Each time they have successfully withdrawn the bulk of their forces, albeit abandoning many heavy weapons and vehicles. I hope they keep up their retreating for the remainder of the conflict.
On which topic I assume they do have a plan B for areas they would be prepared to give up in order to maintain forces, if a counterattack comes.
I assume a few bits of Western Kherson might be up for grabs first, and then some lands bordering the Azov sea. Presumably not anywhere protecting the land bridge to Crimea, and not the core of the Donbas.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
I am no expert, but my memory - fwiw - is that the British lacked heavy weapons, and the Japanese were well dug in. There was an attempt to recapture them, but the British were repulsed with horrendous losses.
The real failures were in not anticipating the Japanese attack from the Malay side, and not realising how vulnerable Singapore was to the loss of its water supply. If the British had defended it from the beginning, the Japanese would have found it extremely difficult to take.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
I am no expert, but my memory - fwiw - is that the British lacked heavy weapons, and the Japanese were well dug in. There was an attempt to recapture them, but the British were repulsed with horrendous losses.
The real failures were in not anticipating the Japanese attack from the Malay side, and not realising how vulnerable Singapore was to the loss of its water supply. If the British had defended it from the beginning, the Japanese would have found it extremely difficult to take.
The japanese were at the end of an extremely tenuous supply line and basically bluffed the brits in to surrendering,
Seattle Times ($) - BREAKING NEWS WA Gov. Jay Inslee won’t seek reelection for fourth term
Leading candidates for Democratic nomination, and election:
> Attorney General Bob Ferguson > Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz
So far, no credible - or even incredible - Republican contender.
NOTE this story from late last week:
ST - Early WA governor’s race skirmish? Campaign finance loophole scrutinized
Washington’s campaign-finance watchdog is eyeing whether to close a loophole that could give Attorney General Bob Ferguson a big campaign cash advantage if he runs for governor next year.
In what amounts to an early 2024 gubernatorial race skirmish, Ferguson’s potential rival, state lands commissioner Hilary Franz, is backing the loophole’s closure as a great idea.
he debate revolves around so-called surplus accounts where Washington politicians are allowed to park unspent campaign donations for use in future campaigns.
Ferguson, a Democrat who has been attorney general since 2013, has amassed more than $2.8 million in his surplus fund.
That money was raised ostensibly for reelection to his current job. But under the state’s current rules, Ferguson could transfer it over to a gubernatorial campaign, and then hit up his donors for new contributions. . . .
The move to crack down on surplus funds, which could blunt Ferguson’s fundraising advantage, was backed by Franz, the Democrat who has served as Commissioner of Public Lands since 2017.
Dmitri Iglitzin and Derek Schoonmaker, lawyers for Franz’s campaign, wrote in a memo that they’d reviewed the law and found Trask’s petition raised “well-founded concerns” and urged the PDC to withdraw its “erroneous guidelines” regarding the surplus funds. . . .
Franz has a surplus fund too, but with only about $29,000 in it.
Jack Sorensen, a Franz campaign spokesperson, said in an email Thursday “Hilary is committing to not touch surplus funds until new guidance is issued.”
Seattle Times ($) - BREAKING NEWS WA Gov. Jay Inslee won’t seek reelection for fourth term
Leading candidates for Democratic nomination, and election:
> Attorney General Bob Ferguson > Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz
So far, no credible - or even incredible - Republican contender.
NOTE this story from late last week:
ST - Early WA governor’s race skirmish? Campaign finance loophole scrutinized
Washington’s campaign-finance watchdog is eyeing whether to close a loophole that could give Attorney General Bob Ferguson a big campaign cash advantage if he runs for governor next year.
In what amounts to an early 2024 gubernatorial race skirmish, Ferguson’s potential rival, state lands commissioner Hilary Franz, is backing the loophole’s closure as a great idea.
he debate revolves around so-called surplus accounts where Washington politicians are allowed to park unspent campaign donations for use in future campaigns.
Ferguson, a Democrat who has been attorney general since 2013, has amassed more than $2.8 million in his surplus fund.
That money was raised ostensibly for reelection to his current job. But under the state’s current rules, Ferguson could transfer it over to a gubernatorial campaign, and then hit up his donors for new contributions. . . .
The move to crack down on surplus funds, which could blunt Ferguson’s fundraising advantage, was backed by Franz, the Democrat who has served as Commissioner of Public Lands since 2017.
Dmitri Iglitzin and Derek Schoonmaker, lawyers for Franz’s campaign, wrote in a memo that they’d reviewed the law and found Trask’s petition raised “well-founded concerns” and urged the PDC to withdraw its “erroneous guidelines” regarding the surplus funds. . . .
Franz has a surplus fund too, but with only about $29,000 in it.
Jack Sorensen, a Franz campaign spokesperson, said in an email Thursday “Hilary is committing to not touch surplus funds until new guidance is issued.”
I assume all the candidates will be in their late nineties ?
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
I am no expert, but my memory - fwiw - is that the British lacked heavy weapons, and the Japanese were well dug in. There was an attempt to recapture them, but the British were repulsed with horrendous losses.
The real failures were in not anticipating the Japanese attack from the Malay side, and not realising how vulnerable Singapore was to the loss of its water supply. If the British had defended it from the beginning, the Japanese would have found it extremely difficult to take.
The japanese were at the end of an extremely tenuous supply line and basically bluffed the brits in to surrendering,
We'll never know. Wikipedia states:
At 09:30, Percival held a conference at Fort Canning with his senior commanders. He proposed two options: an immediate counter-attack to regain the reservoirs and the military food depots around Bukit Timah, or surrender. After a full and frank exchange of views, all present agreed that no counter-attack was possible, and Percival opted for surrender.[139][135] Post-war analysis has shown that a counter-attack might have succeeded. The Japanese were at the limit of their supply line and their artillery units were also running out of ammunition.[140]
Regarding the latest in long line of Putin-bot draft-dodgers hoping that their typing skills can keep them from the Bakhmut meat grinder -
Looking over posts by "Theweb" since he first started infesting PB (at least under that moniker) two days ago, started out reasonable, indeed faintly positive. Or rather subtle as CR just said.
Appears that it was when Tw started on anti-depressant kick, that Smithson the Younger smelled this rat.
Note that "Theweb" achieved 28 likes during brief career here. Moral - PB likers, beware of what you like!
Seems that we must now react to new posters, the same way that Allied POWs used to greet new arrivals to the Stalag: with wariness until and IF they are vetted. Sometimes that only takes a few comments. In this case, a wee bit longer.
I say old chap, who do you think will win the cup on Wednesday? Watford or Wolverhampton Wanderers?
(The pows thought Der Germans could not pronounce the letter "w")
Remember kiddos, that this week's change says nothing about next week's. Just because Labour had a good week this week, doesn't mean they will next. (Or vice versa.)
Fascinating to watch the quiet pre-locals rise of the Lib Dems. Always happens. All those leaflets upping the awareness.
LLG 61% vs RefCon 35%. Reform won’t get many votes in the locals so I expect the real Tory VI is closer to 33-34%.
SNP’s 2% is remarkable but may just be a sampling / rounding effect.
Can’t read too much into one poll, of course 😇 also it’s +1 -1 nudges, so MOE no change. However in the bigger picture of recent polls, yet another showing Tories dropping.
There are BJO and Snookie type greens who will never vote Labour, and for sure more than just me currently voting Lib Dem who won’t vote Labour even if bringing down a Tory depended on it. So likewise I am not letting you or anyone add all the Reform onto Tories for a “Real Tory V1”. Some will, if no reform option this week or even if there is at election time, but I reckon the majority of the 7% Reform recorded don’t want to vote for the underachieving vat of sleaze that is Sunak’s government this week.
What the Tories poll this week will surprise being on the low side.
Remember kiddos, that this week's change says nothing about next week's. Just because Labour had a good week this week, doesn't mean they will next. (Or vice versa.)
Oh come on Robert, you know a 1% change represents a sea change in voting intentions.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
Remember kiddos, that this week's change says nothing about next week's. Just because Labour had a good week this week, doesn't mean they will next. (Or vice versa.)
Oh come on Robert, you know a 1% change represents a sea change in voting intentions.
MoE is in both directions. It could be a 19% lead...
Regarding 'labour's planning reforms', there is very little substance on what Labours plans are in the article in the Times, which has triggered the discussions today.
On my reading, it seems that labour would essentially keep the current planning system (no ripping it up and starting again), just change it a bit to recreate something like a tier of regional planning, and hinting that there may be a review of the Green Belt, possibly.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
I am no expert, but my memory - fwiw - is that the British lacked heavy weapons, and the Japanese were well dug in. There was an attempt to recapture them, but the British were repulsed with horrendous losses.
The real failures were in not anticipating the Japanese attack from the Malay side, and not realising how vulnerable Singapore was to the loss of its water supply. If the British had defended it from the beginning, the Japanese would have found it extremely difficult to take.
The japanese were at the end of an extremely tenuous supply line and basically bluffed the brits in to surrendering,
We'll never know. Wikipedia states:
At 09:30, Percival held a conference at Fort Canning with his senior commanders. He proposed two options: an immediate counter-attack to regain the reservoirs and the military food depots around Bukit Timah, or surrender. After a full and frank exchange of views, all present agreed that no counter-attack was possible, and Percival opted for surrender.[139][135] Post-war analysis has shown that a counter-attack might have succeeded. The Japanese were at the limit of their supply line and their artillery units were also running out of ammunition.[140]
But it's very much a "might".
It depends on well trained and motivated troops. General Slim would have probably tried it, but many of them were raw recruits.
Military success depends on the quality of your people and leadership, just as in any other walk of life.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
If Zhukov or von Manstein were in the same position there would have been nothing inevitable about it.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
Despite the recurring meme that Russia promotes Scottish secession, here's a proud Unionist pooping out Kremlin talking points. Won't be long before he's doing the whole 'Ukraine is actually part of Russia' schtik (unless he's sectioned first).
I wonder with these types if they were always a bit loony,and it only really comes out once they've had a taste of celebrity outside their initial fields, or if its a natural performance consequence of liking the online furore that occurs when they do it.
The overlap between antivaxxers and antiwokies is quite interesting to me. It seems that being distressed by woke ideas strongly indicates a fear of vaccines. Or it could be the other way round of course.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
If Zhukov or von Manstein were in the same position there would have been nothing inevitable about it.
Neither of those two would have just thrown in the towel.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
Remember kiddos, that this week's change says nothing about next week's. Just because Labour had a good week this week, doesn't mean they will next. (Or vice versa.)
But we are close to declaring Sunak’s spring bounce dead, due to a succession of polls suggesting so, and Doug earlier saying Con flatlining (where I would say flat chested) on the graph, the Tory momentum killed perhaps by governments having advantage of oxygen of publicity due to announcements they can make, but in campaign their opponents get to be heard too. Or, the most likely in my opinion, Sunak’s hungry and aggressive opponents tying a fresh in post PM of 8 months to the legacy of his party in power 13 years is now having an impact.
Fascinating to watch the quiet pre-locals rise of the Lib Dems. Always happens. All those leaflets upping the awareness.
LLG 61% vs RefCon 35%. Reform won’t get many votes in the locals so I expect the real Tory VI is closer to 33-34%.
SNP’s 2% is remarkable but may just be a sampling / rounding effect.
Can’t read too much into one poll, of course 😇 also it’s +1 -1 nudges, so MOE no change. However in the bigger picture of recent polls, yet another showing Tories dropping.
There are BJO and Snookie type greens who will never vote Labour, and for sure more than just me currently voting Lib Dem who won’t vote Labour even if bringing down a Tory depended on it. So likewise I am not letting you or anyone add all the Reform onto Tories for a “Real Tory V1”. Some will, if no reform option this week or even if there is at election time, but I reckon the majority of the 7% Reform recorded don’t want to vote for the underachieving vat of sleaze that is Sunak’s government this week.
What the Tories poll this week will surprise being on the low side.
Turnout will be another question mark. I get the sense from the polling data that much of the Labour support is among the low engagement floating voters who may well turn up for a GE but not locals. Likewise Reform, and Green. But not so much Lib Dem and Tory. If you’re engaged enough to specify LD in a poll, or contrary enough to stick with Conservative, I reckon you’re more likely to bother to vote (and bring your old person’s photo ID with you too).
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
If Zhukov or von Manstein were in the same position there would have been nothing inevitable about it.
Neither of those two would have just thrown in the towel.
It feels like the beginning of the reversion of the polls back to a 20 point lead but early days yet
The last few days have been a real shitshow in hitting people directly in the pocket.
I'm not surprised that's now starting to show up in the polling.
WRT the GE, the probability is that the die is cast and because of inflation, competence, debt, deficit, NHS, sleaze the Tories can't form the next government.
I would put it at a 20% chance; and in terms of the routes to it: a -10% chance the Tories can do enough to win, and a +10% chance Labour can do enough to lose, these figures including, perhaps requiring, all Black Swans.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
Quite possibly saved a lot of military lives though, given it came back at the end of the war anyway. Not to say it was the right decision, but the Stalingrad / Bakhmut approach isn’t always the right one.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
The part of this classic book on the fall of Singapore, and the Burma railway by an Australian POW is well worth reading. Not very flattering on the conduct of the war. The original has drawings by Ronald Searle, who the author knew from the POW camps.
It feels like the beginning of the reversion of the polls back to a 20 point lead but early days yet
The last few days have been a real shitshow in hitting people directly in the pocket.
I'm not surprised that's now starting to show up in the polling.
WRT the GE, the probability is that the die is cast and because of inflation, competence, debt, deficit, NHS, sleaze the Tories can't form the next government.
I would put it at a 20% chance; and in terms of the routes to it: a -10% chance the Tories can do enough to win, and a +10% chance Labour can do enough to lose, these figures including, perhaps requiring, all Black Swans.
In my lifetime, when the Tories have shit the bed polling wise is when they fuck up people's housing/mortgage costs
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
If Zhukov or von Manstein were in the same position there would have been nothing inevitable about it.
The Aussie gunners wanted to shell the palace of the sultan of Johore, on the roof, of which the Japanese has set up a battery. Percival refused permission on the grounds that they couldn’t damage the sultans palace.
Regarding the latest in long line of Putin-bot draft-dodgers hoping that their typing skills can keep them from the Bakhmut meat grinder -
Looking over posts by "Theweb" since he first started infesting PB (at least under that moniker) two days ago, started out reasonable, indeed faintly positive. Or rather subtle as CR just said.
Appears that it was when Tw started on anti-depressant kick, that Smithson the Younger smelled this rat.
Note that "Theweb" achieved 28 likes during brief career here. Moral - PB likers, beware of what you like!
Seems that we must now react to new posters, the same way that Allied POWs used to greet new arrivals to the Stalag: with wariness until and IF they are vetted. Sometimes that only takes a few comments. In this case, a wee bit longer.
It looks as though their comments were erased completely, rather than just a normal ban.
I think there is a possibility that this person 'theweb' or previous aliases could be a real person in the UK. I am suggesting this because I have encountered lots of people with very similar views in real life. Some people seem very lucid and convincing for a period and then go off in to a very odd place - someone like Majad Nawaaz is an example of this (albeit over a much longer time period).
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The surrender at Tobruk was equally embarassing.
One reason why Churchill was so keen on Operation Pedestal was because he needed to show the US and Soviets that British forces were still capable of offsneive operations.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
If Zhukov or von Manstein were in the same position there would have been nothing inevitable about it.
Neither of those two would have just thrown in the towel.
Zhukov was a handsome bastard.
What's a war hero got to do to get a drink round here?
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
In my view, it was our behaviour in the battles along the Malay peninsula that were inexplicable.
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
I'm with you on this one:
The mistakes were made in the run up; once we were trapped and running low on food, water and supplies, then we were pretty fucked. It's possible that a counterattack might have worked, but the allies were already suffering from lots of desertions at that point.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
Remember kiddos, that this week's change says nothing about next week's. Just because Labour had a good week this week, doesn't mean they will next. (Or vice versa.)
But we are close to declaring Sunak’s spring bounce dead, due to a succession of polls suggesting so, and Doug earlier saying Con flatlining (where I would say flat chested) on the graph, the Tory momentum killed perhaps by governments having advantage of oxygen of publicity due to announcements they can make, but in campaign their opponents get to be heard too. Or, the most likely in my opinion, Sunak’s hungry and aggressive opponents tying a fresh in post PM of 8 months to the legacy of his party in power 13 years is now having an impact.
hmmm
theres still quite some way to the election and probably more good news than bad news to come. On any current poll the levela of undecideds is probably the most important factor.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Crete was as good an example of command incompetence and collapse as any, despite having intelligence warning. It inspired Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honour trilogy, in part.
IIRC, part of the issue re: Crete 1941 was that commanding general was concerned with NOT tipping off Germans, that Allies were reading their top-secret communications via Enigma? Though for sure this was compounded by other command mistakes.
BTW, one notable retreat involving British was Korea 1950, during Chosen Reservoir campaign. Royal Marine contingent was only small part of UN force composed mostly of US Marines. However, it played an absolutely critical role in holding Hung-Nam against massive Chinese attack (Task Force Drysdale) thus keeping the line of retreat open.
Of course, official position of USMC was, and still is, that there was NO retreat. Instead, advancing to the rear!
Freiburg, the General on Crete, was given everything. The exact times of landings, targets, the works. Even after the initial landings proved the intelligence to be exact and correct he chose to ignore it.
This included the exact loads the German paratroopers carried in the initial assaults. And the fact that they were, in effect, nearly completely unarmed on landing.
For those with a sense of humour, the details of the paratroopers loads included spare clothing. Yes, the British knew how many spare pair of underpants the Germans were landing with….
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
The question surrounding the quality of the British fighting men during WW2 is hotly debated. Max Hastings is unflattering and he does have a point. But James Holland and (unbelievably) Al Murray - who is moving into this space with some skill - point out that the Brits did win some battles, won the important ones, and did about as good as a non-fanatic civilian army could. Things like the Great Swan do not get as much attention as they perhaps should.
The best comment I saw was "when the Brits were surrounded on three sides they retreated and when on four they surrendered", which I think has a grain of truth, but I think they got better at it as the war wore on.
James Holland and Al Murray have a podcast. One of the episodes is where they discuss Max Hastings review of a book by Anthony Beevoir, and it's worth a Google.
The Ukrainian driver’s fake licence, complete with the former British prime minister’s picture and correct birthdate, was purportedly issued in 2019 and valid until the end of the year 3000...
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
I'm not Prince Harry's biggest fan, but I see nothing shameful about his service in Afghanistan. If the Taliban allow Al Qaeda to operate on their soil, and Al Qaeda murder 3,000 Americans, well, there's going to be pushback. I wouldn't characterise his conduct as "murdering Muslims."
Recent polling does rather suggest that rumours of a narrowing of the Labour/Tory gap such that it is only a matter of time until the gap is under 10pp may be greatly exaggerated. Sunak aficionados, please explain.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
I'm not Prince Harry's biggest fan, but I see nothing shameful about his service in Afghanistan. If the Taliban allow Al Qaeda to operate on their soil, and Al Qaeda murder 3,000 Americans, well, there's going to be pushback. I wouldn't characterise his conduct as "murdering Muslims."
It brought back memories of the crusades and turned it into a holy war.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
I'm not Prince Harry's biggest fan, but I see nothing shameful about his service in Afghanistan. If the Taliban allow Al Qaeda to operate on their soil, and Al Qaeda murder 3,000 Americans, well, there's going to be pushback. I wouldn't characterise his conduct as "murdering Muslims."
It brought back memories of the crusades and turned it into a holy war.
You have memories of the crusades? You must have an amazing plastic surgeon.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
I'm not Prince Harry's biggest fan, but I see nothing shameful about his service in Afghanistan. If the Taliban allow Al Qaeda to operate on their soil, and Al Qaeda murder 3,000 Americans, well, there's going to be pushback. I wouldn't characterise his conduct as "murdering Muslims."
It brought back memories of the crusades and turned it into a holy war.
When Al Qaeda struck, they were already treating it as a holy war. I very much doubt if you were favouring a couse of non-resistance, back then.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
Quite possibly saved a lot of military lives though, given it came back at the end of the war anyway. Not to say it was the right decision, but the Stalingrad / Bakhmut approach isn’t always the right one.
Rather sadly, the point of the armed forces is not to stay alive, it's to ensure they die in a useful way...
It feels like the beginning of the reversion of the polls back to a 20 point lead but early days yet
The last few days have been a real shitshow in hitting people directly in the pocket.
I'm not surprised that's now starting to show up in the polling.
the conservatives arent conservative.
Indeed, the Tories are delivering so much of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto, it is unreal.
As someone who is generally Tory (but not since Patersongate) it seems to me that those who want Real Conservative Conservatism have a politically significant job to do, which isn't being done.
Banking Crisis+Brexit+ Covid +Ukraine Events have shifted the Overton window, sent SME through the roof, and left demands for costlier public services on every front.
What is lacking (thank you Truss) is a coherent, costed, election-proof, sane, non-Unicorn medium term Proper Conservative plan from the Centre Right Policy Wonk Institute.
I am not alone in longing to know what it would say. I have literals no idea. can anyone point me in the right direction. Until then I am voting for that well known One Nation Tory Sir Keir Starmer.
Yes, embarrassing, but we didn't run from either of those and fought first before surrendering.
Singapore comes bloody close to a French performance though.
I prefer not to think about it.
British military history includes rather a lot of running away. The retreat from Greece, then Crete, the Retreat from Burma in 1942, some epic retreats in the North African campaign, and of course the Daddy of all retreats at Dunkirk, and that is just WW2.
Retreating successfully is a key military skill, and not to be sneered at.
Withdrawal is different to rout.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
AIUI, once the Japanese had captured the water supplies for Singapore, then we were fucked. There was no easy way to recapture them, and the Japanese could simply have blockaded us and let us starve and dehydrate.
or given the UK outnumbered the japanese 2 to 1 they could have attacked and fought their way out. Failure of leadership
Singapore was a disgraceful performance, on our part.
The British Army's second most shameful day in its history.
The first being the day they gave Mr Markle his commission?
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
See this is why I hate the Royal Family, I thought we were over sending European Royalty to muslim lands to murder muslims.
I'm not Prince Harry's biggest fan, but I see nothing shameful about his service in Afghanistan. If the Taliban allow Al Qaeda to operate on their soil, and Al Qaeda murder 3,000 Americans, well, there's going to be pushback. I wouldn't characterise his conduct as "murdering Muslims."
It brought back memories of the crusades and turned it into a holy war.
Comments
Looking over posts by "Theweb" since he first started infesting PB (at least under that moniker) two days ago, started out reasonable, indeed faintly positive. Or rather subtle as CR just said.
Appears that it was when Tw started on anti-depressant kick, that Smithson the Younger smelled this rat.
Note that "Theweb" achieved 28 likes during brief career here. Moral - PB likers, beware of what you like!
Seems that we must now react to new posters, the same way that Allied POWs used to greet new arrivals to the Stalag: with wariness until and IF they are vetted. Sometimes that only takes a few comments. In this case, a wee bit longer.
he who fights and runs away etc,
Many thanks @KemiBadenoch. It was a great pleasure to meet you. Italy and the United Kingdom are linked by common values and interests and I am sure that the work we are doing for Italian and British companies can further strengthen our collaboration in many promising sectors.
https://twitter.com/giorgiameloni/status/1652732605048004608
We were talking about the challenges of this century.
The first three of those, and Dunkirk, were planned military withdrawals, which are often sensible in the face of overwhelming force; they allow you to preserve your force in being to fight another day on better terms.
A rout is different - that's where the enemy has you on the run, and it's entirely disorderly, leading to surrender in pockets or en-masse.
That's what happened at Singapore.
Like you say, command incompetence turned it into a defeat.
BTW, one notable retreat involving British was Korea 1950, during Chosen Reservoir campaign. Royal Marine contingent was only small part of UN force composed mostly of US Marines. However, it played an absolutely critical role in holding Hung-Nam against massive Chinese attack (Task Force Drysdale) thus keeping the line of retreat open.
Of course, official position of USMC was, and still is, that there was NO retreat. Instead, advancing to the rear!
Social media can really corrode.
For all our faults, at least we all stay on here and engage with the other side - and keep coming back to do so - even if we sometimes lose our cool.
Teachers asked to chip in £1 each for legal case against Ofsted
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/may/01/teachers-asked-to-chip-in-1-each-for-legal-case-against-ofsted
This is at least one circumstance where judicial review is richly merited, IMO.
Westminster VI (30 April):
Labour 45% (+1)
Conservative 28% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Reform UK 7% (+1)
Green 4% (-1)
Scottish National Party 2% (-1)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 23 April
redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voti…
https://twitter.com/redfieldwilton/status/1653066755030364162?s=46
Labour leader Keir Starmer’s net approval rating stands at +10%, up five points from last week. 39% approve of Starmer’s job performance (+5), while 29% disapprove (–).
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak receives a net approval rating of -5%, up one point from our poll last Sunday, and the highest net approval rating he has held since 3 January. Yesterday’s poll finds 35% approving of his overall job performance (+2) against 40% (+1) disapproving.
LLG 61% vs RefCon 35%. Reform won’t get many votes in the locals so I expect the real Tory VI is closer to 33-34%.
SNP’s 2% is remarkable but may just be a sampling / rounding effect.
(Sorry, but just had a "Joe Biden" moment.)
I assume a few bits of Western Kherson might be up for grabs first, and then some lands bordering the Azov sea. Presumably not anywhere protecting the land bridge to Crimea, and not the core of the Donbas.
And we might never again hear from @bigjohnowls .
The real failures were in not anticipating the Japanese attack from the Malay side, and not realising how vulnerable Singapore was to the loss of its water supply. If the British had defended it from the beginning, the Japanese would have found it extremely difficult to take.
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1652844127665500162
> Attorney General Bob Ferguson
> Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz
So far, no credible - or even incredible - Republican contender.
NOTE this story from late last week:
ST - Early WA governor’s race skirmish? Campaign finance loophole scrutinized
Washington’s campaign-finance watchdog is eyeing whether to close a loophole that could give Attorney General Bob Ferguson a big campaign cash advantage if he runs for governor next year.
In what amounts to an early 2024 gubernatorial race skirmish, Ferguson’s potential rival, state lands commissioner Hilary Franz, is backing the loophole’s closure as a great idea.
he debate revolves around so-called surplus accounts where Washington politicians are allowed to park unspent campaign donations for use in future campaigns.
Ferguson, a Democrat who has been attorney general since 2013, has amassed more than $2.8 million in his surplus fund.
That money was raised ostensibly for reelection to his current job. But under the state’s current rules, Ferguson could transfer it over to a gubernatorial campaign, and then hit up his donors for new contributions. . . .
The move to crack down on surplus funds, which could blunt Ferguson’s fundraising advantage, was backed by Franz, the Democrat who has served as Commissioner of Public Lands since 2017.
Dmitri Iglitzin and Derek Schoonmaker, lawyers for Franz’s campaign, wrote in a memo that they’d reviewed the law and found Trask’s petition raised “well-founded concerns” and urged the PDC to withdraw its “erroneous guidelines” regarding the surplus funds. . . .
Franz has a surplus fund too, but with only about $29,000 in it.
Jack Sorensen, a Franz campaign spokesperson, said in an email Thursday “Hilary is committing to not touch surplus funds until new guidance is issued.”
Lab 52%
Con 12%
SNP 26%
LD 4%
Reform 6%
At 09:30, Percival held a conference at Fort Canning with his senior commanders. He proposed two options: an immediate counter-attack to regain the reservoirs and the military food depots around Bukit Timah, or surrender. After a full and frank exchange of views, all present agreed that no counter-attack was possible, and Percival opted for surrender.[139][135] Post-war analysis has shown that a counter-attack might have succeeded. The Japanese were at the limit of their supply line and their artillery units were also running out of ammunition.[140]
But it's very much a "might".
(The pows thought Der Germans could not pronounce the letter "w")
There are BJO and Snookie type greens who will never vote Labour, and for sure more than just me currently voting Lib Dem who won’t vote Labour even if bringing down a Tory depended on it. So likewise I am not letting you or anyone add all the Reform onto Tories for a “Real Tory V1”. Some will, if no reform option this week or even if there is at election time, but I reckon the majority of the 7% Reform recorded don’t want to vote for the underachieving vat of sleaze that is Sunak’s government this week.
What the Tories poll this week will surprise being on the low side.
Conservative 28% (-1)
Liberal Democrat 12% (+1)
Reform UK 7% (+1)
Green 4% (-1)
Scottish National Party 2% (-1)
Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 23 April
https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1653066755030364162?t=3YdW0iLSNSAv2s_y50uhAw&s=19
Just in time for the locals...
Once we'd retreated to Singapore Island, and were cut off, it was inevitable and only a matter of time.
On my reading, it seems that labour would essentially keep the current planning system (no ripping it up and starting again), just change it a bit to recreate something like a tier of regional planning, and hinting that there may be a review of the Green Belt, possibly.
Military success depends on the quality of your people and leadership, just as in any other walk of life.
I'm not surprised that's now starting to show up in the polling.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/donald-trump-arrives-aberdeen-uk-first-visit-2019-b1077985.html
I would put it at a 20% chance; and in terms of the routes to it: a -10% chance the Tories can do enough to win, and a +10% chance Labour can do enough to lose, these figures including, perhaps requiring, all Black Swans.
The Naked Island https://amzn.eu/d/gwpL1ce
1) 1990* - The Community Charge
2) 1992 - The ERM crisis
3) 2017 - Mrs May's dementia tax
4) 2022 - Liz Truss and her voodoo economics
*1989 for Scottish viewers.
Certainly I want to be notified ASAP if a big steaming pile of toxic waste gets dumped in my vicinity!
One reason why Churchill was so keen on Operation Pedestal was because he needed to show the US and Soviets that British forces were still capable of offsneive operations.
The mistakes were made in the run up; once we were trapped and running low on food, water and supplies, then we were pretty fucked. It's possible that a counterattack might have worked, but the allies were already suffering from lots of desertions at that point.
(Can remember back to olden times, when Prince Harry was hailed as a Great British war hero!)
theres still quite some way to the election and probably more good news than bad news to come. On any current poll the levela of undecideds is probably the most important factor.
This included the exact loads the German paratroopers carried in the initial assaults. And the fact that they were, in effect, nearly completely unarmed on landing.
For those with a sense of humour, the details of the paratroopers loads included spare clothing. Yes, the British knew how many spare pair of underpants the Germans were landing with….
There's no way the Tories are as high as 12% in Scotland.
This is the British Army's most shameful day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
The question surrounding the quality of the British fighting men during WW2 is hotly debated. Max Hastings is unflattering and he does have a point. But James Holland and (unbelievably) Al Murray - who is moving into this space with some skill - point out that the Brits did win some battles, won the important ones, and did about as good as a non-fanatic civilian army could. Things like the Great Swan do not get as much attention as they perhaps should.
The best comment I saw was "when the Brits were surrounded on three sides they retreated and when on four they surrendered", which I think has a grain of truth, but I think they got better at it as the war wore on.
James Holland and Al Murray have a podcast. One of the episodes is where they discuss Max Hastings review of a book by Anthony Beevoir, and it's worth a Google.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/01/dutch-police-find-fake-boris-johnson-licence-in-car-of-suspected-drunk-driver
Dutch police who arrested a man in connection with a drink-driving incident were surprised to find that the name on his driving licence was Boris Johnson.
The Ukrainian driver’s fake licence, complete with the former British prime minister’s picture and correct birthdate, was purportedly issued in 2019 and valid until the end of the year 3000...
Sunak aficionados, please explain.
NEW THREAD
Banking Crisis+Brexit+ Covid +Ukraine Events have shifted the Overton window, sent SME through the roof, and left demands for costlier public services on every front.
What is lacking (thank you Truss) is a coherent, costed, election-proof, sane, non-Unicorn medium term Proper Conservative plan from the Centre Right Policy Wonk Institute.
I am not alone in longing to know what it would say. I have literals no idea. can anyone point me in the right direction. Until then I am voting for that well known One Nation Tory Sir Keir Starmer.