The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
With Sue Gray it did and does look a bit badly timed. And indeed if the stories are correct she will have to have 6 months of gardening leave.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?
You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.
I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.
Aside from that, well done!
It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.
*lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.
My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.
Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
It was a campaign meeting for a critical by-election in Hartlepool.
Do you think that Durham takeaway curry's are so good that they attract casual diners from London on a regular basis?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You really are making an absolute fool of yourself on this. It was a work meeting, they had some food after a very long day. That was it.
Strangely, never heard you say "It was a work meeting, they had some birthday cake after a very long day. That was it."
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Investment - and aid - to build renewable infrastructure in developing countries would be good for the entire world both economically and environmentally.
Labelling it reparations wouldn't change that reality, even if it were to irritate some.
Are these reparations to be paid before, after or parallel to the slavery ones ?
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15% and the Greens are on 8%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs and in Remain seats in London to Starmer Labour
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?
You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.
I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.
Aside from that, well done!
It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.
*lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.
My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.
Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
It was a campaign meeting for a critical by-election in Hartlepool.
Do you think that Durham takeaway curry's are so good that they attract casual diners from London on a regular basis?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
He wasn't sure it was within the rules.
He was sure it was within the rules. He used to be DPP so he does have a good understanding of the law and our legal system. But laws do get interpreted, so he was clear that if they found he was wrong he would go. The other guy *was* wrong, repeatedly, about rules he created. Yet its clearly a conspiracy against him.
The harsh reality for the Tories and for those who provide them succour is that has Starmer been fingered for currygate and had to fall on his sword, the spotlight would immediately shine on Johnson. Who already had a load of likely breeches under investigation and who had been caught doing the exact same thing as Starmer during that election campaign. They wouldn't have liked that part, and the spinning would have been hilarious to watch. Its almost a pity we missed out.
He did not say it as within the rules. He said he was unsure. If there was the doubt, why do it?
I've never mentioned 'the other guy', or a 'conspiracy'. Stop inventing stuff.
Where did I say you had? I said "the Tories and the people who provide him succour". The Tory / Mail attack was explicitly a spoiler campaign to divert away from Boris. And they still cling to it.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a failure and a waste of time & resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
As would the 2029 election.
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
Sunak does not want the same fate.
Yes. Despite the losses, the Conservatives still have a sizeable councillor base. A repeat of the mid-90’s would see them lose almost every county council, plus about half the 2,500 seats they won on May 4th.
In terms of councils however Labour now control more. What is different is the Tories have held councils like Dartford, Walsall and Dudley and Torbay they lost in 1995 but lost a few councils like Surrey Heath and Spelthorne they held in 1995
The Conservatives were down to 13 councils, in 1997, far fewer than now.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a waste of time and resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
Chastise failed, but came very close to success. That’s the nature of all war.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
It is one of the most Leave areas of London and he will get a personal vote, even if not in a by election he could hold it at the general
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?
You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.
I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.
Aside from that, well done!
It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.
*lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.
My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.
Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
It was a campaign meeting for a critical by-election in Hartlepool.
Do you think that Durham takeaway curry's are so good that they attract casual diners from London on a regular basis?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
It was within the rules at the time. They didn't need to avoid it.
He wasn't sure it was within the rules.
He was sure it was within the rules. He used to be DPP so he does have a good understanding of the law and our legal system. But laws do get interpreted, so he was clear that if they found he was wrong he would go. The other guy *was* wrong, repeatedly, about rules he created. Yet its clearly a conspiracy against him.
The harsh reality for the Tories and for those who provide them succour is that has Starmer been fingered for currygate and had to fall on his sword, the spotlight would immediately shine on Johnson. Who already had a load of likely breeches under investigation and who had been caught doing the exact same thing as Starmer during that election campaign. They wouldn't have liked that part, and the spinning would have been hilarious to watch. Its almost a pity we missed out.
He did not say it as within the rules. He said he was unsure. If there was the doubt, why do it?
I've never mentioned 'the other guy', or a 'conspiracy'. Stop inventing stuff.
Where did I say you had? I said "the Tories and the people who provide him succour". The Tory / Mail attack was explicitly a spoiler campaign to divert away from Boris. And they still cling to it.
I might suggest you reread your post - which was in response to mine...
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
What do you think it is now?
Bridgend is already Lab under the new boundaries. The "old" Bridgend seat is split. Bridgend town goes in with Ogmore (although the seat is then renamed Bridgend). Porthcawl then goes with Aberavon, making both successor seats safely Labour.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
However, if the Tories did pull off a 1992 type result, subsequent local elections would be total carnage for the party.
As would the 2029 election.
The great tragedy for Major was winning a tiny majority. Had he won a big majority, e.g. the 77 UNS predicted, he would have had more seats to play with and party discipline could have been more strictly enforced. They would probably still have lost in 1997 but it would have been a defeat not a rout.
Had he got a hung Parliament, Labour would likely have taken power but he would probably have been kept on as party leader and after twelve months Labour would have been out, taking all the blame for Black Wednesday and he'd have been set up for ten years.
Sunak does not want the same fate.
Yes. Despite the losses, the Conservatives still have a sizeable councillor base. A repeat of the mid-90’s would see them lose almost every county council, plus about half the 2,500 seats they won on May 4th.
In terms of councils however Labour now control more. What is different is the Tories have held councils like Dartford, Walsall and Dudley and Torbay they lost in 1995 but lost a few councils like Surrey Heath and Spelthorne they held in 1995
The Conservatives were down to 13 councils, in 1997, far fewer than now.
Yes the Tories kept a few more, 33, in May but the LDs were close behind on 29 councils and Labour were still ahead winning control of 71 councils and NOC was first with 92 councils
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a waste of time and resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
Chastise failed, but came very close to success. That’s the nature of all war.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
Not from me. We were engaged in total war against a country that was set to conquer most of Europe and wanted to at best subjugate us and at worst conquer us as well.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
It's a major event in world history that we are experiencing in real-time and trying to make sense of as we go along. It would be incredibly weird if we didn't talk about it.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a waste of time and resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
Chastise failed, but came very close to success. That’s the nature of all war.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
Dunno, some people did have problems with it at the time. In the immediate aftermath folk recoiled from what had been done, and I think Harris felt that he and his boys were shunned after having been left to do the dirty work.
Churchill in his usual mercurial style had various crises of conscience over strategic bombing during the war - ‘Are we beasts?’
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Is there any virtue-signalling, idiotic waste of other people's money that Labour's activists and younger MP candidates WOULDN'T support?
Until they realise that it will be the young who will have to pay for all this.
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Isn't there something weird about setting your own questions and then expecting to get marked on the answers?
The funny one for me that DWARFS the rest is 'stopping the boats'. I heard yesterday that only ONE IN TWENTY SIX asylum seekers arrive by boat!
So he has not only set himself a very silly test even passing it is pointless.
It depends on time frame, I think. Asylum claim numbers have been broadly stable for some time, but the switch to boats is a phenomenon of the last few years, now that stowing away in lorries is more difficult.
Many people travel into the country legally and them claim asylum. Many people travel into the country legally and then, illegally, overstay (and don't claim asylum). These people receive far less attention. Why is that? Part of it is that we want to stop the boats because of the risk to individuals' safety.
However, I think another part of the reason is that these people don't serve an invasion narrative, a deliberate phrasing of the problem to make it scary, which is a framing that has been used for over a century in immigration discussions.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
After all that Russia has already done I'm surprised that I'm still shocked by this.
"NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports The Russian Armed Forces are hitting Kherson with artillery, trying to disrupt the evacuation of civilians. Shrapnel wounds were received by two police officers, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine reports."
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
In a typical pre-industrial society, average life expectancy was about 35, 1 in 30 births resulted in the death of the mother, most of the population were illiterate, there was little in the way of democracy, and rates of violence were generally higher than in the prosperous, industrialised world of today.
The worst wars (in terms of destroying proportions of the world's population) were the An Lushan revolt, the Mongol conquests, the conquests of Timur, The Thirty Years War and the Deluge, all carried out with edged and pointed weapons, or in the case of the latter, early firearms.
In a desperately poor world, one grows rich by seizing the land, goods, and persons of other people. In a much richer world, like ours, there are other options.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Indian voters today are the Jewish voters of 40 - 50 years ago, abandoing their old allegiances, and moving rightwards.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
Partly, but you would struggle to kill 56m people in ww2 with that world population, but nothing but horses and sailing ships.
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a waste of time and resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
Chastise failed, but came very close to success. That’s the nature of all war.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
Dunno, some people did have problems with it at the time. In the immediate aftermath folk recoiled from what had been done, and I think Harris felt that he and his boys were shunned after having been left to do the dirty work.
Churchill in his usual mercurial style had various crises of conscience over strategic bombing during the war - ‘Are we beasts?’
No one had sufficient problems with it to stop doing it. And why would they? Nazism had to be utterly destroyed.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
This is a fantasy. That is, it is something that is not based on evidence, but on what you want to be true. There is no evidence, only speculation, that Starmer saying he would resign had any impact on Durham police. The case that he "probably" contravened legislation is weak.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
The old Bridgend seat was going to swing back to Labour in any case, even before the Jamie Wallace behaviour. But the new Bridgend seat has lost the Tory voting area of Porthcawl and inherited much of the heavily Labour seat of Ogmore. So absolutely zero chance of Conservatives holding Bridgend.
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
Partly, but you would struggle to kill 56m people in ww2 with that world population, but nothing but horses and sailing ships.
Industrialisation certainly facilitated genocide and made it easier.
Tories really need to get over this. There's nothing there, let alone anything 'absolutely shocking'. (Except, I guess, confronting the fact that reality doesn't match their expectations.)
“Absolutely shocking, but sadly part of a wider pattern,” tweeted the Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith.
“You know it’s chaired by a Conservative peer?” Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons standards committee, replied to him, referring to the role of the former minister Eric Pickles as Acoba’s chair...
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
If you are referring to me, I said that *if* Gray had had meetings with Labour before the report over a job, then it stunk to high heaven. Note the conditional.
And as for currygate: again, Starmer could not say that he had not broken the law. That is from a big-brained lawyer who I believe voted for the relevant legislation. If he had his doubts, why didn't you (and that's going away from the utter stupidity of the event anyway).
Perhaps those people so keen to clear Labour of things hate other parties so much they're unable to see the wood for the trees...
Were you looking in the mirror when you made that last statement?
You can't let Beergate go, despite what appeared to be rather a rigerous review by Durham Constabulary. It looks like you also can't accept that Gray was impartial, even though her report was the dampest of damp squibs and pretty much let Johnson off the hook.
Beergat was wrong, for the reasons I've stated passim. It may not be *illegal* - and remember, even Starmer could not say that it was legal - but it was a stupid thing to do.
I do accept Gray was impartial now; my comments are about why it was reasonable to feel it was sniffy *at that time*.
Aside from that, well done!
It is hard to sustain the argument that Beergate was a major public health risk in April 2021, but that lockdown* went on far too long.
*lockdown wasn't all or nothing, it was graduated and restrictions being eased. When looking at the incidents that occurred, this is often ignored. Fortunately for SKS the Durham police realise this.
My objection to Starmer eating and boozing indoors wasn't that I thought it was a major public health risk. My objection was that on that same night, I was sat outside in the cold supporting my local pub and I was outside because he thought it was dangerous for me to be inside. But he didn't have any qualms about having a nice cosy meal indoors with people from outside his own household.
Its the same argument about essential workers being allowed to meet in person and most people not. Or some kids being allowed to stay in school whilst the majority both missed school and drove themselves and their parents up the wall.
Meeting for work was either legal or it was illegal. And with campaigning it was legal - and all parties did it including PM Johnson. The idea that Starmer was doing something wrong is at best partisan hackery and at worst an obsessional grudge.
Okay, I object to all of the politicians doing it. It may have been legal (I'm not sure how much campaigning was going on, to be honest), but just because something is legal, doesn't mean you have to do it. Labour were particularly hawkish about COVID. They didn't look like they were going above and beyond when it came to stopping the spread of the virus.
It was a campaign meeting for a critical by-election in Hartlepool.
Do you think that Durham takeaway curry's are so good that they attract casual diners from London on a regular basis?
It could easily have been avoided. They didn't care enough to avoid it.
You really are making an absolute fool of yourself on this. It was a work meeting, they had some food after a very long day. That was it.
Strangely, never heard you say "It was a work meeting, they had some birthday cake after a very long day. That was it."
The problem with that defence is two-fold.
(1) Had they had cake during a work meeting, that would have been one thing, but multiple people attended who were not present for a work meeting.
(2) If the birthday cake had been the only thing, we wouldn't still be talking about it. It wasn't. There were multiple incidents. Some, albeit not involving Johnson, involved people partying into the early hours of the morning.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Indian voters today are the Jewish voters of 40 yer
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
Partly, but you would struggle to kill 56m people in ww2 with that world population, but nothing but horses and sailing ships.
Industrialisation certainly facilitated genocide and made it easier.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
This is a fantasy. That is, it is something that is not based on evidence, but on what you want to be true. There is no evidence, only speculation, that Starmer saying he would resign had any impact on Durham police. The case that he "probably" contravened legislation is weak.
Why were the indoor areas of pubs closed at this time ?
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Indian voters today are the Jewish voters of 40 yer
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
Partly, but you would struggle to kill 56m people in ww2 with that world population, but nothing but horses and sailing ships.
Industrialisation certainly facilitated genocide and made it easier.
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
This is a fantasy. That is, it is something that is not based on evidence, but on what you want to be true. There is no evidence, only speculation, that Starmer saying he would resign had any impact on Durham police. The case that he "probably" contravened legislation is weak.
Why were the indoor areas of pubs closed at this time ?
Because those were the rules at the the time.
Starmer's meeting was not in the indoor area of a pub, so this is not an issue for Starmer.
You could criticise the rules and say it was silly to close indoor areas of pubs, but allow people to have a curry and beer in an indoor work meeting. Any criticism of the rules should be addressed to the Government in charge.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
The old Bridgend seat was going to swing back to Labour in any case, even before the Jamie Wallace behaviour. But the new Bridgend seat has lost the Tory voting area of Porthcawl and inherited much of the heavily Labour seat of Ogmore. So absolutely zero chance of Conservatives holding Bridgend.
The swing to the Tories in Ogmore in 2019 was 7.6%, actually more than the 6.8% swing to the Tories in Bridgend.
Ogmore was 59% Leave compared to Bridgend's 55% Leave
Good thing our emissions are below China on a per capita basis then. France must be expecting a rebate with it's nuclear use too quite honestly.
While China's CO2 emissions per capita have now overtaken those of the UK, the UK is, per capita, still responsible for far more of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to its long history of CO2 emissions.
So the direction of our investment should be in cleaning up the mess - by driving a transition to green energy - rather than handing over £dollah in reparations. Especially when some of the beneficiaries will be the people who are currently the worst polluters.
Reparations is a pretty loaded term, but it does seem fair that those countries that have put the most CO2 into the atmosphere should also be bearing the brunt of efforts to curb emissions, which means helping other countries to industrialise much more cleanly than we did.
Industrialisation, however, was a blessing. It took the world out of the 17th century.
I think the mere elapse of time did that. It also brought us the sweat shop, and children up chimneys, and industrial World War-scale slaughter, and global warming. Defining it as a blessing, or a curse, doesn't seem like useful history.
Pre-industrialisation, life was decidedly grim, and a lot more violent, for the large majority.
Strongly dispute that. There's great tracts of pre-industrial history where one part of the world or another enjoyed peace and strong/just government, so why does industrialisation affect violence levels? It is no coincidence that all the greatest mass atrocities are 20th century.
Isn't that partly because populations increased with industrialisation?
Partly, but you would struggle to kill 56m people in ww2 with that world population, but nothing but horses and sailing ships.
Industrialisation certainly facilitated genocide and made it easier.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Yes the Tories had an astonishingly good result in Leicester, gaining 17 seats from Labour in May against the national trend, no doubt helped by the 'Rishi bonus' with the large Hindu vote there
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Indian voters today are the Jewish voters of 40 - 50 years ago, abandoing their old allegiances, and moving rightwards.
My mum hates Rishi "£5,000 shirt" Sunak even more than I do!
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
Brexit has now been done though. Honestly I don't think Leave/Remain is going to be a helpful predictor in this coming election.
It still very much is, on the latest Yougov the Tories lead on 44% with Leavers with Labour on 26% and RefUK on 16% but Labour lead on 54% with Remainers with the Tories third on just 14% behind the LDs on 15%.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs
I think my MP could well hold Bassetlaw - but I can't see Boris holding Uxbridge in a by-election, the general shift + the ever present by-election 'extra' is just too great
Another factor that might help him is the relatively high Hindu and Sikh population in the constituency. The conservatives have been markedly bucking the national trend in areas with large Indian (particularly Hindu) populations. This seems to pre-date Sunak as PM do I don’t think it’s a case of people voting for “one of ours”.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
That's a good point, the best result for the Tories in the council elections by far was Leicester where there's more people of Indian descent than white British.
Russian is, I note, one of 6 official languages of the UN. It has official recognition in 5 UN member states not directly involved in the Ukraine conflict (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova). It has significant usage in Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Uzbekistan and Israel, and some usage in Tajikistan, Mongolia and China. So maybe we should recognise that "speaking Russian (a language)" is not synonymous with "supporting Russian (the state) aggression in Ukraine".
We know that many world leaders primarily respect strength. The message at the UN should be clear. Russia is losing. Their plan is to do as much damage in the process of losing as they can. Not unheard of but hardly the behaviour of a great power.
Russian is, I note, one of 6 official languages of the UN. It has official recognition in 5 UN member states not directly involved in the Ukraine conflict (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova). It has significant usage in Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Uzbekistan and Israel, and some usage in Tajikistan, Mongolia and China. So maybe we should recognise that "speaking Russian (a language)" is not synonymous with "supporting Russian (the state) aggression in Ukraine".
Tories really need to get over this. There's nothing there, let alone anything 'absolutely shocking'. (Except, I guess, confronting the fact that reality doesn't match their expectations.)
“Absolutely shocking, but sadly part of a wider pattern,” tweeted the Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith.
“You know it’s chaired by a Conservative peer?” Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons standards committee, replied to him, referring to the role of the former minister Eric Pickles as Acoba’s chair...
I suppose in the minds of the New Cons, Pickles is himself a tainted figure - a relic of the Cameron era and therefore a probably Remoaner committed to thwarting the hearty Brexiteerywrights at every turn.
Russian is, I note, one of 6 official languages of the UN. It has official recognition in 5 UN member states not directly involved in the Ukraine conflict (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Moldova). It has significant usage in Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Uzbekistan and Israel, and some usage in Tajikistan, Mongolia and China. So maybe we should recognise that "speaking Russian (a language)" is not synonymous with "supporting Russian (the state) aggression in Ukraine".
Are you sure Belarus isn't involved?
I accept Belarus's status is perhaps complicated in this matter. Nevertheless, let us not visit the sins of the father on the children, so to speak.
Is there any virtue-signalling, idiotic waste of other people's money that Labour's activists and younger MP candidates WOULDN'T support?
Until they realise that it will be the young who will have to pay for all this.
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
Russia blowing up the dam is going to have severe consequences. The act equates to the use of weapons of mass destruction under international law. ------ "Dams like the Dnipro dam in Nova Kahkovka are protected by the laws of war and the Geneva convention. Destroying it would be considered a weapon of mass destruction and an indiscriminate war crime. Article 56 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
'Works and installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.'
Talking about Desert Storm, the Americans thought about blowing up the dams on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers if the Iraqis used WMD in Desert Storm.
Colin Powell said they stopped when they realised it would cause more damage than nuking Baghdad and realised they would likely face war crimes charges.
War crimes? Bloody woke rubbish, back to the good old days when such activities were seen as heroic and you could call your dog what you want.
It’s just as well we didn’t have leaders who shrank from doing what needed to be done in WWII.
Of course Harris thought Chastise was a waste of time and resources (though I daresay he had no problem with the morality of it), therefore something that very much did not need to be done.
Chastise failed, but came very close to success. That’s the nature of all war.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
Dunno, some people did have problems with it at the time. In the immediate aftermath folk recoiled from what had been done, and I think Harris felt that he and his boys were shunned after having been left to do the dirty work.
Churchill in his usual mercurial style had various crises of conscience over strategic bombing during the war - ‘Are we beasts?’
No one had sufficient problems with it to stop doing it. And why would they? Nazism had to be utterly destroyed.
I think doubting ‘if any of us would have a problem with the morality of’ our leaders ‘doing what needed to be done’ is as foolish as imposing modern mores on the world of 75 years ago. Exploring the nuances, contradictions and the morally conflicted is much more interesting than telling ourselves simple black and white fables about a time we can only imagine.
Tories really need to get over this. There's nothing there, let alone anything 'absolutely shocking'. (Except, I guess, confronting the fact that reality doesn't match their expectations.)
“Absolutely shocking, but sadly part of a wider pattern,” tweeted the Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith.
“You know it’s chaired by a Conservative peer?” Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons standards committee, replied to him, referring to the role of the former minister Eric Pickles as Acoba’s chair...
I suppose in the minds of the New Cons, Pickles is himself a tainted figure - a relic of the Cameron era and therefore a probably Remoaner committed to thwarting the hearty Brexiteerywrights at every turn.
We must stamp out these enemies of the people! The Conservative-chaired ACOBA, the Conservative-majority House of Commons Committee of Privileges, the Conservative-appointed Sue Gray, the Conservative-established COVID-19 Inquiry!
Sounds like the explosion at the dam was big enough to satisfy Josias.
"Oliver Carroll @olliecarroll Eyewitnesses told us that there was a deafening explosion from #Kakhovka in the early morning, with sky turned to white and windows breaking as far as 80 km away."
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
This is a fantasy. That is, it is something that is not based on evidence, but on what you want to be true. There is no evidence, only speculation, that Starmer saying he would resign had any impact on Durham police. The case that he "probably" contravened legislation is weak.
I don't 'want' anything to be true. I just believe different to you, is all.
None of it matters, really. Personally I would have declared an amnesty to ALL covid offences - any student party organisers, dog-walkers meeting for coffee etc.
Blamed on a “technical error by a colleague with an Excel table”.
If only Rishi Sunak had been there.
Lol, yes. Apparently the error was found when a journalist queried an inconsistency. Oops.
The backdrop is interesting too. The Social Democrats have been pondering how to deal with an unlikely resurgence of the almost-dead Communist Party, who got 0.7% at the last election but recently won two state elections with a mixture of LibDem tactics (relentless focusing on local issues) and personal austerity (their councillors donate most of their pay to food banks and other local voluntary services). On the back of that, their national polling shot up to 6-8%.
What to do? Babler, who won the Social Democrat vote after the recount, seems to be a hard leftist who makes Corbyn sounds moderate. But the Social Democrats have problems on the centrist flank too, and it seems unlikely that Babler and the comic chaos surrounding his election will help there. Overall it's good news for the far right FPO and the Christian Democrat OVP - maybe also for the centrist NEOS.
Is there any virtue-signalling, idiotic waste of other people's money that Labour's activists and younger MP candidates WOULDN'T support?
Until they realise that it will be the young who will have to pay for all this.
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
Hit any pot-holes?
Hard not to near where I live. The council try and fill them up every so often but don't do the job properly. So they collapse again, the council get called, they come round .... and on it goes.
After all that Russia has already done I'm surprised that I'm still shocked by this.
"NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦 @NOELreports The Russian Armed Forces are hitting Kherson with artillery, trying to disrupt the evacuation of civilians. Shrapnel wounds were received by two police officers, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine reports."
Mrs Flatlander always asks "Why is Moscow still standing?" each time this kind of thing happens. She's obviously nuts and may well be capable of surviving on radioactive sheeps entrails on Bradfield Moor, but it is a question. Ukraine are playing with one hand tied.
Time to go long on Iodine? I don't think the wind direction is great should the nuclear power station be the next target.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Is there any virtue-signalling, idiotic waste of other people's money that Labour's activists and younger MP candidates WOULDN'T support?
Until they realise that it will be the young who will have to pay for all this.
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
Hit any pot-holes?
Hard not to near where I live. The council try and fill them up every so often but don't do the job properly. So they collapse again, the council get called, they come round .... and on it goes.
Happens everywhere! I recall having exactly the same conversation when Mum and I visited our home town in Kerala just six months back!
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
That's assuming they
1: Work in the first place 2: Can be successfully launched. 3: Can successfully evade interception. 4: Can successfully reach their target. 5: Can successfully explode at their target.
And I've probably forgotten other things.
It may be enough to create some damage to their enemies, which would be tragic if so, but its not enough to wipe out humanity or entire cities etc - whereas Russia and Moscow especially would be destroyed.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
Forget the figures on small boats, what is the percentage decrease in the value of Rishi Sunak’s outfits these days? Is that something we are monitoring?
I am. When he stepped out in Dover yesterday, Sunak probably thought that the focus would be on the update to his immigration policy, but it’s his wardrobe that interests me. Please explain.
Just look at what he had on his feet. I’d rather not.
Not for our PM the £490 Prada loafers or £335 Common Projects trainers he has previously worn out and about. In place of those chichi accessories was a pair of £190 distressed Timberland boots. Are you sure?
I’ll level with you: the PR for Timberland wouldn’t confirm as such (not the “right positioning”, apparently) but look, you can clearly see the logo. Yikes. Bit awks.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Such a dodgy barchart it is a wonder it doesn't come from a Lib Dem.
Israel doesn't occupy East Jerusalem, it is a part of Israel and has been for about fifty years now. East Jerusalem was part of Jordan, not "Palestine" before Jordan attempted to wipe Israel off the map and lost, and lost East Jerusalem in the process.
A bit like how parts of modern day Poland used to be a part of Germany. Countries that attempt to wipe others off the map and lose may end up losing land.
Perhaps Russia may end up losing Belgorod to Ukraine when all this is done and Crimea etc have been liberated. Would be karmic justice, a bit like Germany and Jordan losing land they once had.
I made those bar charts simply to wind up the PB Corbynistas and @Dura_Ace
Just look at the "area" bar chart! More than 20 times as much territory illegally occupied by their glorious Russian heroes!
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
Forget the figures on small boats, what is the percentage decrease in the value of Rishi Sunak’s outfits these days? Is that something we are monitoring?
I am. When he stepped out in Dover yesterday, Sunak probably thought that the focus would be on the update to his immigration policy, but it’s his wardrobe that interests me. Please explain.
Just look at what he had on his feet. I’d rather not.
Not for our PM the £490 Prada loafers or £335 Common Projects trainers he has previously worn out and about. In place of those chichi accessories was a pair of £190 distressed Timberland boots. Are you sure?
I’ll level with you: the PR for Timberland wouldn’t confirm as such (not the “right positioning”, apparently) but look, you can clearly see the logo. Yikes. Bit awks.
Sounds like the explosion at the dam was big enough to satisfy Josias.
"Oliver Carroll @olliecarroll Eyewitnesses told us that there was a deafening explosion from #Kakhovka in the early morning, with sky turned to white and windows breaking as far as 80 km away."
Also doesn't sound like the sort of explosion that could be delivered by missile, in case anyone was still in any doubt as to who was responsible.
"satisfy Josias" ???
It's hard to know what's been happening there. The Russians have apparently increased the levels so much that the dam was allegedly overtopped, and the road at the top swept away a while back. It *could* be just that the dam failed due to the water levels; the noise would be the structure failing plus the water. Wouldn't explain 'sky turned to white' though, unless that was local as the power station and power lines shorted. A small breach could also be rapidly enlarged by the rushing water, as happened to at least one of the Ruhr dams.
A conventional explosion breaking windows 80km away would also be... large. That doesn't pass the sniff test to me.
Having said the above, I doubt it. And the failure would still be Russia's fault for overfilling. The timing of the failure is too coincidental. IMV it was blown, and probably (not certainly) by Russia.
As a side note, I wonder if the breach as picked up on seismometers?
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
Not enough to turn London, New York, Washington, Paris and a large number of other cities to glass as was the original laughable claim I responded to though.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Incidentally, Perun's latest video is on escalation management.
I believe it's been linked to before on here, but it's worth watching if you're interested in this topic.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
Not enough to turn London, New York, Washington, Paris and a large number of other cities to glass as was the original laughable claim I responded to though.
Forget the figures on small boats, what is the percentage decrease in the value of Rishi Sunak’s outfits these days? Is that something we are monitoring?
I am. When he stepped out in Dover yesterday, Sunak probably thought that the focus would be on the update to his immigration policy, but it’s his wardrobe that interests me. Please explain.
Just look at what he had on his feet. I’d rather not.
Not for our PM the £490 Prada loafers or £335 Common Projects trainers he has previously worn out and about. In place of those chichi accessories was a pair of £190 distressed Timberland boots. Are you sure?
I’ll level with you: the PR for Timberland wouldn’t confirm as such (not the “right positioning”, apparently) but look, you can clearly see the logo. Yikes. Bit awks.
If Alastair Campbell was working for him he would rip £5,000 shirts off his back straight after streams of foul language. So don’t blame Rishi, blame his handlers.
Is there any virtue-signalling, idiotic waste of other people's money that Labour's activists and younger MP candidates WOULDN'T support?
Until they realise that it will be the young who will have to pay for all this.
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war.
The rescue vehicle which came to mend my damaged wheel wanted paying in cash, which I did. A very nice man, recommended by husband's insurer - Adrian Flux. Eventually got home at 2:30 am.
Pretty scary sitting on hard shoulder with lorries thundering past. God knows what it'd have been like on a so-called "smart" motorway.
You implied this was not your first blowout. More than one seems like rather a lot. Have you had your tyres checked?
It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
Another tip is never buy budget tyres (often. Chinese). I have done much research on this and intermediate brand tyres are often just as well engineered as premium brands. I use Hankook (South Korean) and have for years, and they are often 30% cheaper than Bridgestones or Continentals.
That said budget or premium brands are all susceptible to the dangerous debris and potholes scattered all over the motorway network.
I notice however TSE fails to mention Starmer only leads Sunak 42% to 37% as preferred PM in the same Redfield poll. A result which if reflected in voting intention after the debates and election campaign would produce a hung parliament
I don't dispute that is a likely outcome, although I even suspect a few more Tory holds. But the seats? That seems odd. Bridgend stays Tory?
Bridgend was 55% Leave
The old Bridgend seat was going to swing back to Labour in any case, even before the Jamie Wallace behaviour. But the new Bridgend seat has lost the Tory voting area of Porthcawl and inherited much of the heavily Labour seat of Ogmore. So absolutely zero chance of Conservatives holding Bridgend.
The swing to the Tories in Ogmore in 2019 was 7.6%, actually more than the 6.8% swing to the Tories in Bridgend.
Ogmore was 59% Leave compared to Bridgend's 55% Leave
I am not sure what point you are trying to make..... Are you seriously suggesting that Tories will take new Bridgend seat??? I will happily take your money off you if you are!!
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
Russian warhead pits aren’t sealed like US/U.K. ones. They corrode rapidly - 2-3 lifespan.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
Russian warhead pits aren’t sealed like US/U.K. ones. They corrode rapidly - 2-3 lifespan.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
Precisely. And given how Potemkin everything else about Russia's military has been it wouldn't surprise me if the money for Tritium has been redirected to more pressing matters. Like Yachts, Chateaus etc
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander ISRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
Not enough to turn London, New York, Washington, Paris and a large number of other cities to glass as was the original laughable claim I responded to though.
To pick one at random, the Iskander's range is 500km. Paris is 170km from the sea. London is about the same (depending on where you call the end of the estuary). Washington is approximately the same. New York is on the coast.
For instance, Cologne is roughly about 500km away from London.
Plenty enough distance for a missile strike from a submarine. London and Paris are also vulnerable to air launch as well. It'll probably be suicidal for the submarine or plane,
The same people that insisted SKS was being dodgy around Sue Gray are the same people that insisted he was guilty when he ate a curry.
Perhaps it is that these people hate somebody so much that they're unable to see the wood for the trees
I'm not sure its entirely that. Starmer was, I think, very clever in response to the Beergate allegations. By saying he would resign if given a FPN he put huge pressure on to Durham police. Was it really worth being the downfall of the leader of the opposition over a trivial offence way back in the past? No. Did he contravene the exact legislation? Probably.
This is a fantasy. That is, it is something that is not based on evidence, but on what you want to be true. There is no evidence, only speculation, that Starmer saying he would resign had any impact on Durham police. The case that he "probably" contravened legislation is weak.
I don't 'want' anything to be true. I just believe different to you, is all.
None of it matters, really. Personally I would have declared an amnesty to ALL covid offences - any student party organisers, dog-walkers meeting for coffee etc.
You may believe what you want. I believe your belief is not based on much evidence.
SAGE (SPI-B) advised the Government to be less zealous in enforcing COVID offences, but the Government ignored this advice.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
Russian warhead pits aren’t sealed like US/U.K. ones. They corrode rapidly - 2-3 lifespan.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
Indeed. But as I said, they don't need to maintain all their arsenal. Even 10% of it would cause massive problems - and even if only 10% of that 10% worked. Russia is supposed to have nearly 6,000 warheads. 10% of 10% would still leave 60 working ones.
Now, I don't believe they have just under 6,000 working warheads. But I fear that if you;'re claiming they have no working warheads, then that's just hope over experience. If I was them, I would have maintained 1,000 in working order and kept the others as 'paper' warheads to frighten opponents.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
Russian warhead pits aren’t sealed like US/U.K. ones. They corrode rapidly - 2-3 lifespan.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
Indeed. But as I said, they don't need to maintain all their arsenal. Even 10% of it would cause massive problems - and even if only 10% of that 10% worked. Russia is supposed to have nearly 6,000 warheads. 10% of 10% would still leave 60 working ones.
Now, I don't believe they have just under 6,000 working warheads. But I fear that if you;'re claiming they have no working warheads, then that's just hope over experience. If I was them, I would have maintained 1,000 in working order and kept the others as 'paper' warheads to frighten opponents.
Even if they have 60 working ones, that doesn't necessarily mean 60 successful launches even if they try to launch them. Nor would all successful launches equate to successful explosions at the intended target. There's multiple possible failure points along the sequence.
Yes, they exist to frighten opponents. But if they were actually called upon, I don't for one second think it would be a case of mutually assured destruction.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Time for the west to give Russia an ultimatum - if they blow up the NPP (or have an 'accidental' leak) then remaining gloves are off - Russia to ceasefire and immediately start withdrawing to 2014 borders. Failure to comply will result in NATO strikes against non-complying Russian forces - but with clear assurance that no attacks will take place against Russia itself.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
Well perhaps the best option would be to stop burning the stuff and instead use it only for essential purposes. Then we wouldn't need so much of it.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
I think that's being a bit silly. I have great doubt that *all* their stated nuclear arsenal is in working condition. But could they have kept (say) 10% of it in working order?
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
Russian warhead pits aren’t sealed like US/U.K. ones. They corrode rapidly - 2-3 lifespan.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
Indeed. But as I said, they don't need to maintain all their arsenal. Even 10% of it would cause massive problems - and even if only 10% of that 10% worked. Russia is supposed to have nearly 6,000 warheads. 10% of 10% would still leave 60 working ones.
Now, I don't believe they have just under 6,000 working warheads. But I fear that if you;'re claiming they have no working warheads, then that's just hope over experience. If I was them, I would have maintained 1,000 in working order and kept the others as 'paper' warheads to frighten opponents.
Even if they have 60 working ones, that doesn't necessarily mean 60 successful launches even if they try to launch them. There's multiple possible failure points along the sequence.
Yes, they exist to frighten opponents. But if they were actually called upon, I don't for one second think it would be a case of mutually assured destruction.
No. My point was that they might have 10% of their stated warheads in working condition. That means 600. If 10% of the launches worked (given multiple warheads on the same missile), then that would be 60 *successful* ones.
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
The PB Curried Toy Soldiers are out on a big training exercise today.
Why not give your views, rather than sneering at those who support Ukraine?
Nothing else to do but sneer. Russia doesn't exactly give Ana much to work with on the balanced argument stakes....
I support Ukraine.
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
What makes me cringe is how easily triggered you are by people considering what might happen, particularly if they're positive for Ukraine...
Two key objectives in the Ukraine war: 1. Defeat Russia. 2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Well along with London, New York, Washington Paris and a large number of other cities.
Please.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Russia have successfully killed a lot of people and destroyed a number of urban areas. If North Korea can build functioning nuclear weapons then I think Russia can.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Russia have killed people using conventional weaponry, but are failing massively even there.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
The Russians have been using SRBMs in Ukraine already; just with conventional payloads. E.g. the 9K720 Iskander SRBM, OTR-21 Tochka SRBM, and Kinzhal cruise missile. More than enough to deploy a payload over Ukraine. Or Poland...
Not enough to turn London, New York, Washington, Paris and a large number of other cities to glass as was the original laughable claim I responded to though.
It's hardly laughable. Badly maintained they might be, but Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the World.
The only significant uncertainty about their operational effectiveness is the warheads themselves. There's no real evidence for a large percentage of their missiles longer being operational.
Even if 90% are O/S, that's enough to take out a large number of cities.
Yes Keir "Lock 'Em Up" Starmer is the political wing of the green protest movement... There are a few projections suggesting we may hit the 1.5 degrees above industrial temperatures this summer. And that could be a consistent temperature increase by 2030. That is the line at which most projections are like "we could likely protect civilisation as we know it in developed countries at the expense of a lot of lives elsewhere". We do not have the time to not halt new fossil fuel extraction. The ONLY argument for more fossil fuel extraction would be if we ever actually solve carbon capture (a thing we have not actually solved despite selling it as if it is a thing that works) and the short term value of fossil fuels allows us to invest in that. I'm in my early 30s. I would quite like a habitable and safe planet by the time I'm 60. Hell, if I'm lucky enough to live into my 90s like my grandad currently is, I'd quite like a habitable planet then!
If we hit the 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures that's not going to make the world uninhabitable. That's a fraction of a degree above where we have been in recent decades and fractions of a degree are perfectly normal variance.
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If it stayed at 1.5 degrees, possibly - although there is a big issue that if we were to get to 1.5 the feedback loop would still lead to greater warming. I also don't really see the decarbonising push by individual countries as useful if all they are doing is outsourcing their carbon producing industries to other countries who end up producing our consumer goods and then blamed for the new emissions, whilst also not benefitting from any wealth creation themselves.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
Totally agreed that merely outsourcing our emissions is not helping the climate, which is why we need cleaner, greener, domestic extraction of fossil fuels for where we need fuels rather than relying upon imports from countries where standards are lower and emissions are higher.
And yet we have zealots who want to block domestic licences without blocking imports which worsens global emissions it doesn't help it.
Comments
With Sue Gray it did and does look a bit badly timed. And indeed if the stories are correct she will have to have 6 months of gardening leave.
Yes Labour will likely win back some Leave Redwall seats but the biggest swing against the Tories next year is likely to be in Remain seats in the Home Counties to the LDs and in Remain seats in London to Starmer Labour
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ilyj0v7ubm/TheTimes_VI_230526_W.pdf
Your level of intellectual engagement is noted.
I doubt if any of us would have had a problem with the morality of the Strategic bombing campaign, had we been alive at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections
What makes me cringe is a load of toy soldiering beardy wargamers pontificating on real world military strategy on a chat room.
Something to watch more widely at the next GE.
Churchill in his usual mercurial style had various crises of conscience over strategic bombing during the war - ‘Are we beasts?’
1. Defeat Russia.
2. Avoid it collapsing into nuclear war.
We know there is a risk of a trapped and embattled Putin deciding he needs to roll the dice with all he has left to avoid (1). That any such move would very quickly escalate into a world where Russia is reduced to a sea of radioactivity and islands of molten glass hopefully makes him Stop and Think.
Redfield und Wilton, 6th December 2021...
Incidentally, there is a good documentary on iPlayer - The Scramble for Rare Earths which mentions that Ukraine has one of the biggest reserves of the materials we need for the "green transition", many of them in the Dombass Region, which gives another interesting perspective on the reasons for the war. It's the second in six months. I have a service plan and the car was serviced and passed its MoT a few months back. The tyres were checked then. As they were after the first blowout. So maybe just bad luck?
However, I think another part of the reason is that these people don't serve an invasion narrative, a deliberate phrasing of the problem to make it scary, which is a framing that has been used for over a century in immigration discussions.
"NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦
@NOELreports
The Russian Armed Forces are hitting Kherson with artillery, trying to disrupt the evacuation of civilians. Shrapnel wounds were received by two police officers, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine reports."
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1666001954261159940
The worst wars (in terms of destroying proportions of the world's population) were the An Lushan revolt, the Mongol conquests, the conquests of Timur, The Thirty Years War and the Deluge, all carried out with edged and pointed weapons, or in the case of the latter, early firearms.
In a desperately poor world, one grows rich by seizing the land, goods, and persons of other people. In a much richer world, like ours, there are other options.
(Except, I guess, confronting the fact that reality doesn't match their expectations.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/06/sue-gray-cleared-to-take-up-labour-job-this-autumn-partygate
...there was renewed criticism on Tuesday as the Acoba finding emerged.
“Absolutely shocking, but sadly part of a wider pattern,” tweeted the Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith.
“You know it’s chaired by a Conservative peer?” Chris Bryant, the Labour MP and chair of the Commons standards committee, replied to him, referring to the role of the former minister Eric Pickles as Acoba’s chair...
(1) Had they had cake during a work meeting, that would have been one thing, but multiple people attended who were not present for a work meeting.
(2) If the birthday cake had been the only thing, we wouldn't still be talking about it. It wasn't. There were multiple incidents. Some, albeit not involving Johnson, involved people partying into the early hours of the morning.
Starmer's meeting was not in the indoor area of a pub, so this is not an issue for Starmer.
You could criticise the rules and say it was silly to close indoor areas of pubs, but allow people to have a curry and beer in an indoor work meeting. Any criticism of the rules should be addressed to the Government in charge.
Ogmore was 59% Leave compared to Bridgend's 55% Leave
@UN
Tuesday is Russian Language Day.
Follow @UnitedNationsRU for updates on the UN's work in Russian.
https://twitter.com/un/status/1665932022160965632
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2023/england/councils/E06000016
BJP with a blue rosette.
On the back of the policies on North Sea Oil and Gas and the bung from one of the major providers of on shore wind.
I wonder if we will see a dreaded "green new deal" next.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/labour-climate-tsar-is-extinction-rebellion-s-former-legal-strategy-co-ordinator/ar-AA1caQ5J?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=bec714168f634cef806c5a4532ea1a10&ei=14
"Oliver Carroll
@olliecarroll
Eyewitnesses told us that there was a deafening explosion from #Kakhovka in the early morning, with sky turned to white and windows breaking as far as 80 km away."
https://twitter.com/olliecarroll/status/1665997969672347650
Also doesn't sound like the sort of explosion that could be delivered by missile, in case anyone was still in any doubt as to who was responsible.
None of it matters, really. Personally I would have declared an amnesty to ALL covid offences - any student party organisers, dog-walkers meeting for coffee etc.
Time to go long on Iodine? I don't think the wind direction is great should the nuclear power station be the next target.
Russia's Potemkin military has been a shambles in everything that has come to pass.
I highly doubt they'll be able to successfully nuke any city if it came to it - their radioactive materials will either have decayed, or their weaponry would fail to launch, or be intercepted.
Yes. And that's more than enough to create massive damage to their enemies.
1: Work in the first place
2: Can be successfully launched.
3: Can successfully evade interception.
4: Can successfully reach their target.
5: Can successfully explode at their target.
And I've probably forgotten other things.
It may be enough to create some damage to their enemies, which would be tragic if so, but its not enough to wipe out humanity or entire cities etc - whereas Russia and Moscow especially would be destroyed.
Many fewer than they claim to have, but enough.
Is that something we are monitoring?
I am. When he stepped out in Dover yesterday, Sunak probably thought that the focus would be on the update to his immigration policy, but it’s his wardrobe that interests me.
Please explain.
Just look at what he had on his feet.
I’d rather not.
Not for our PM the £490 Prada loafers or £335 Common Projects trainers he has previously worn out and about. In place of those chichi accessories was a pair of £190 distressed Timberland boots.
Are you sure?
I’ll level with you: the PR for Timberland wouldn’t confirm as such (not the “right positioning”, apparently) but look, you can clearly see the logo.
Yikes. Bit awks.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/can-rishi-sunaks-190-boots-protect-his-leadership-xjdmssdwf
Just look at the "area" bar chart! More than 20 times as much territory illegally occupied by their glorious Russian heroes!
150,000 sq. km v. 7,000 sq. km.
Having working ICBMs that can reach their targets without interception and without failing is an order of magnitude more complicated. I see nothing from Russia's performance in this war to suggest they are capable of it, though obviously I don't want to see that put to the test.
It's hard to know what's been happening there. The Russians have apparently increased the levels so much that the dam was allegedly overtopped, and the road at the top swept away a while back. It *could* be just that the dam failed due to the water levels; the noise would be the structure failing plus the water. Wouldn't explain 'sky turned to white' though, unless that was local as the power station and power lines shorted. A small breach could also be rapidly enlarged by the rushing water, as happened to at least one of the Ruhr dams.
A conventional explosion breaking windows 80km away would also be... large. That doesn't pass the sniff test to me.
Having said the above, I doubt it. And the failure would still be Russia's fault for overfilling. The timing of the failure is too coincidental. IMV it was blown, and probably (not certainly) by Russia.
As a side note, I wonder if the breach as picked up on seismometers?
Of course climate change is real, but we're already working on it. We're already decarbonising. We still need fossil fuel extraction, for the interim, and we will need fossil fuel extraction even when we hit net zero as petrochemicals are required for many medicines, materials and other industrial purposes not remotely related to burning and releasing carbon.
I want a habitable world. We are working on that already though and need to continue to do the right thing, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I believe it's been linked to before on here, but it's worth watching if you're interested in this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWKGYnO0Jf4
That said budget or premium brands are all susceptible to the dangerous debris and potholes scattered all over the motorway network.
However we need oil and gas for the foreseeable future. Simply refusing new licenses to extract our own and reduce reliance on other nations is crazy. Richard Tyndall has posted quite a bit about it here.
Oil is used for far more than just "fossil fuels" and produces a wide range of products we simply do not have an easy option to replace.
Labour taking money from a donor who has a vested financial interest in onshore wind generation and then, by a happy coincidence, announcing their policy on North Sea Licenses is interesting.
Plus they need multiple kilos of Tritium per year to replace decay losses.
Russia is losing Kherson and will blow the hydro dam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c0PoTrgnA0
For instance, Cologne is roughly about 500km away from London.
Plenty enough distance for a missile strike from a submarine. London and Paris are also vulnerable to air launch as well. It'll probably be suicidal for the submarine or plane,
SAGE (SPI-B) advised the Government to be less zealous in enforcing COVID offences, but the Government ignored this advice.
Now, I don't believe they have just under 6,000 working warheads. But I fear that if you;'re claiming they have no working warheads, then that's just hope over experience. If I was them, I would have maintained 1,000 in working order and kept the others as 'paper' warheads to frighten opponents.
Yes, they exist to frighten opponents. But if they were actually called upon, I don't for one second think it would be a case of mutually assured destruction.
And by uninhabitable I don't just mean the climate, I mean the political reality also leading to uninhabitable scenarios. If 700 million people are displaced by 2030 due to droughts across Asia and Africa (as is projected), then the current anti immigrant fervour will continue through the roof, and the fortress nation state will lead to increased authoritarianism. The current food inflation will pale in comparison to impacts of mass drought / flooding; one of the reasons wheat prices have been so bad (beyond the Ukraine war) is that wheat producing areas in the US, China and Africa have also been ravaged by harsh climate events. Resource wars, especially water wars, could become common in the not to distant future.
How much of a dent to standard of living can people take without things collapsing? If we had made the necessary investment earlier, we could have slowly changed expectations and sourcing for things. Now, who knows. Putting our head in the sand and hoping business as usual works hasn't worked so far. The next generation are more extreme on this issue, on the left and right, and as much as you hate the JSO or XR activists the ecofascists are much worse.
And I'm probably lowballing the figures.
Badly maintained they might be, but Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the World.
The only significant uncertainty about their operational effectiveness is the warheads themselves. There's no real evidence for a large percentage of their missiles longer being operational.
Even if 90% are O/S, that's enough to take out a large number of cities.
And yet we have zealots who want to block domestic licences without blocking imports which worsens global emissions it doesn't help it.