3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
Wears mustard coloured cords and a barber jacket. Talks extremely posh. Absolutely a posho.
Barbour
Even knowing the spelling is a class marker.
Poshos wear Barbours when doing unspeakable posh things to innocent wildlife in the mud and rain. Actually these days they wear green Mustos which cost even more and work about equally badly. Wearing the things clean, on telly, in the city is trying too hard. but yes, Dulwich, so he is probably lower middle posh.
And don't get me started on covert coats, they are for hacking to the covert in.
Hipster poshos should wear Filson which costs yet more, dunno how many posho hipsters there are though.
Oooh I like the look of tin cloth
Also their rather coy note about the fuller figured US gentleman: All Filson sizes are US sizes which can be larger for a European stature, so we recommend sizing down.
You would look a bit of a twat if you wrestled a bird from a picker up or took it from your dog and stuffed it in the Tin Cloth Game Bag before you headed over to the next drive.
Wouldn't want to look a twat when doing that kind of thing.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
The posh people I went to school with - their families wouldn't have invited him round for tea.
He always came across as Arthur Daley to me.
This just illustrates how poshness is an entirely relative concept. If he doesn't seem posh to you, could it be that you are posher than he is? I mean, he seems posh to me because I am less posh than he is, but plenty of people think I am posh even though my background is just basic middle class.
Different metrics.
I'm definitely not posh in the sense I mean (old money, land) - got invited for tea, but wasn't "one of them". I'm middle class (very) but can socialise with them. Then again, I can't recall any group of people I *can't* socialise with.
You are using the money, clothes, aspirations metric, I think. The difference is that anyone can put on that uniform. To the people I'm talking about, that is stupid cosplay at best. At worst, it is indicating that someone is very rum.
“So you think this chap is as much in society as we were, do you?”
I preferred not to think so myself. We had cause enough for jealousy without that. But Raffles raised his eyebrows an eloquent half-inch.
“As much, my dear Bunny? He is not only in it, but of it; there’s no comparison between us there. Society is in rings like a target, and we never were in the bull’s-eye, however thick you may lay on the ink!
I think you have to have gone to a certain kind of school and been around these people enough to read their rituals and be a part of their world - even if both you and they recognise you are are ultimately not "one if them". You might be unaware of how closed off that world is for the rest of us. To me anyone who exists in that ecosystem seems posh - I don't have the inside knowledge to differentiate clearly within it. For working class people who haven't been to university perhaps it's similar - to them Ed Miliband and David Cameron probably seem equally posh even though I can recognise that they're not, because I went to university with people like them and can recognise that they come from different tribes.
There's always those Hugh Grant / Richard Curtis films ?
Wasn't Amber Rudd employed as a kind of poshness consultant on Four Weddings?
I have no idea.
Posh is, I think, essentially cosplay. There are those who take cosplay very seriously, too.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
There is a great documentary somewhere about Lee Selby, the boxer. He grew up in Barry. And a more bleak depiction of life in modern Britain it is difficult to imagine and yes, this was going on for years hence my response to @Malmesbury that it was people looking for a way out/up and the politicians pitched to them that Brexit was it.
I think it fair to say that for both sides, BREXIT became a totem for larger issues.
Yes, the divide between Remainia and Leaverstan has been around for some time; Brexit just allowed us to give it a name. That said, those bits of Leaverstan that I am familiar with are not without hope. Blyth, Wigan, Amber Valley, Chesterfield/NE Derbys; these places are much improved from what they were 20 years ago. This is not, AFAICS, down to any one thing in particular anyone has done, though there will be dozens of individual policy success stories at local and national level. Rather, it is because Remainia is becoming too expensive. Young middle class couples can't afford to live in Gosforth any more, so they live in Blyth, and take their spending with them.
There may be parts of Leaverstan that are bleaker than they were 20 years ago, or no less bleak, but I haven't come across them (I wouldn't be surprised if it takes rather more to push people to move to Easington than it does to Blyth). Wales may be a special case, as it seems perversely determined to be permanently poor.
There ware places that are way bleaker than they were 20 years.
A poor example would be Shildon where because of Locomotion I've being going to regularly for over 20 years - that definitely has got worse over the years.
Then there are sone villages around Ferryhill (shudder) which make Ferryhill look like a Metropolis.
And if you head towards Durham it's almost random as to whether a surrounding village has improved, stayed the same or got worse over the past 30 years...
I confess* I haven't been to Ferryhill for over 20 years; nor to the surrounding villages. And Shildon: the last time I was there was February 1997, and even back then it felt more like going back in time than anywhere else I'd been in the UK that wasn't a heritage museum. It even smelled of the 1960s. It's almost incredible to believe it's gone backwards since then.
*confess for the purposes of how informed I am for this argument. Outside of that, I feel no personal shame at this fact.
The European Regional Development Fund used to do a good job for such places.
What’s that? Did I hear you say it’s no longer available?
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
The posh people I went to school with - their families wouldn't have invited him round for tea.
He always came across as Arthur Daley to me.
This just illustrates how poshness is an entirely relative concept. If he doesn't seem posh to you, could it be that you are posher than he is? I mean, he seems posh to me because I am less posh than he is, but plenty of people think I am posh even though my background is just basic middle class.
Different metrics.
I'm definitely not posh in the sense I mean (old money, land) - got invited for tea, but wasn't "one of them". I'm middle class (very) but can socialise with them. Then again, I can't recall any group of people I *can't* socialise with.
You are using the money, clothes, aspirations metric, I think. The difference is that anyone can put on that uniform. To the people I'm talking about, that is stupid cosplay at best. At worst, it is indicating that someone is very rum.
“So you think this chap is as much in society as we were, do you?”
I preferred not to think so myself. We had cause enough for jealousy without that. But Raffles raised his eyebrows an eloquent half-inch.
“As much, my dear Bunny? He is not only in it, but of it; there’s no comparison between us there. Society is in rings like a target, and we never were in the bull’s-eye, however thick you may lay on the ink!
I think you have to have gone to a certain kind of school and been around these people enough to read their rituals and be a part of their world - even if both you and they recognise you are are ultimately not "one if them". You might be unaware of how closed off that world is for the rest of us. To me anyone who exists in that ecosystem seems posh - I don't have the inside knowledge to differentiate clearly within it. For working class people who haven't been to university perhaps it's similar - to them Ed Miliband and David Cameron probably seem equally posh even though I can recognise that they're not, because I went to university with people like them and can recognise that they come from different tribes.
There's always those Hugh Grant / Richard Curtis films ?
Wasn't Amber Rudd employed as a kind of poshness consultant on Four Weddings?
I have no idea.
Posh is, I think, essentially cosplay. There are those who take cosplay very seriously, too.
Interestingly, Republicans are more split than it appears at first glace.
For Georgia 42% of Republicans think that what Trump did was either illegal, or unethical if not illegal. Stripping out don't knows, that is 58% saying it was at least unethical.
For Jan 6, its 38% of Republicans think what Trump did was at least unethical. Stripping out don't knows, that's 45% of Republicans say at least unethical.
Considering America has very strong First Amendment rights and people have been arguing (wrongly IMV) that what he was saying was political speech, which is protected under First Amendment, so not illegal - an argument I don't agree with, but at least has some logic - that around half of Republicans are willing to say that Trump was unethical or worse in both instances is less polarised than I've come to expect from America. Republicans aren't all just blindly saying he did nothing wrong.
Maybe there's some hope for Republicans yet.
Agreed.
But there also seems to be a mismatch with voting intention. What are these Republican supporters going to do if Trump is the candidate? If those who thought his actions illegal or unethical don’t support him, Trump will lose by a large margin.
Yes, agreed.
For years there seem to be some eerie similarities between Corbyn and Trump, though Trump is definitely the worst of the two (Corbyn's supporters just liked to act like they won the first election they lost, not overthrow the election).
It seems like a second election might be needed to put down Trump, like it was with Corbyn.
If so, hopefully Jan 6 was the equivalent of Salisbury, where the truth of their man became clear to even lots of their own parties supporters.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
Wears mustard coloured cords and a barber jacket. Talks extremely posh. Absolutely a posho.
Barbour
Even knowing the spelling is a class marker.
Poshos wear Barbours when doing unspeakable posh things to innocent wildlife in the mud and rain. Actually these days they wear green Mustos which cost even more and work about equally badly. Wearing the things clean, on telly, in the city is trying too hard. but yes, Dulwich, so he is probably lower middle posh.
And don't get me started on covert coats, they are for hacking to the covert in.
Hipster poshos should wear Filson which costs yet more, dunno how many posho hipsters there are though.
Oooh I like the look of tin cloth
Also their rather coy note about the fuller figured US gentleman: All Filson sizes are US sizes which can be larger for a European stature, so we recommend sizing down.
You would look a bit of a twat if you wrestled a bird from a picker up or took it from your dog and stuffed it in the Tin Cloth Game Bag before you headed over to the next drive.
Wouldn't want to look a twat when doing that kind of thing.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
The posh people I went to school with - their families wouldn't have invited him round for tea.
He always came across as Arthur Daley to me.
This just illustrates how poshness is an entirely relative concept. If he doesn't seem posh to you, could it be that you are posher than he is? I mean, he seems posh to me because I am less posh than he is, but plenty of people think I am posh even though my background is just basic middle class.
Different metrics.
I'm definitely not posh in the sense I mean (old money, land) - got invited for tea, but wasn't "one of them". I'm middle class (very) but can socialise with them. Then again, I can't recall any group of people I *can't* socialise with.
You are using the money, clothes, aspirations metric, I think. The difference is that anyone can put on that uniform. To the people I'm talking about, that is stupid cosplay at best. At worst, it is indicating that someone is very rum.
“So you think this chap is as much in society as we were, do you?”
I preferred not to think so myself. We had cause enough for jealousy without that. But Raffles raised his eyebrows an eloquent half-inch.
“As much, my dear Bunny? He is not only in it, but of it; there’s no comparison between us there. Society is in rings like a target, and we never were in the bull’s-eye, however thick you may lay on the ink!
I think you have to have gone to a certain kind of school and been around these people enough to read their rituals and be a part of their world - even if both you and they recognise you are are ultimately not "one if them". You might be unaware of how closed off that world is for the rest of us. To me anyone who exists in that ecosystem seems posh - I don't have the inside knowledge to differentiate clearly within it. For working class people who haven't been to university perhaps it's similar - to them Ed Miliband and David Cameron probably seem equally posh even though I can recognise that they're not, because I went to university with people like them and can recognise that they come from different tribes.
There's always those Hugh Grant / Richard Curtis films ?
Wasn't Amber Rudd employed as a kind of poshness consultant on Four Weddings?
Yes. She says it was because she was the only person whose friends had their own morning suits and the production couldn't afford to hire any.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
You are both right and wrong on this. Obviously I live in one of these rust belt communities and the vote for Brexit was not a surprise at all.
There _were_ jobs - more than there were for many years post de-mining - but they were not very well paid. The perception in many quarters, right or wrong, was that this was due to competition from an endless supply of cheap labour from eastern Europe. The removal of a large local factory to Italy with EU money / legislation also didn't help (although that factory had been struggling for many years).
Prior to the pandemic I frequented a number of WMCs or ex-WMCs (many of which are closing down or are only kept running by legacies from companies which no longer exist). I did not hear any direct racism or mutterings about furriners as per the stereotype but there was a definite air that something needed to change.
Brexit probably _has_ helped in some industries and pay has gone up. Unfortunately with externally imposed inflation, that pay rise hasn't gone very far. People are still struggling.
The one thing that helps is that houses are still relatively cheap.
The main problem is none of these things though. The problem is that the London hoovers up all the talent. Why stay in the rustbelt? It has become a vicious circle.
"Levelling up" was a good slogan - a shame it turned out to be just that and nothing more.
Driving through the former Durham or South Yorkshire coalfields its very clear what happened. The jobs for life with comradeship went. New jobs did pop up, but in the form of distribution warehouses. There seem to be DCs and new link roads in so many of these places, where the secure and decently paid jobs have gone and instead there are transitory and poorly paid jobs requiring little skill.
What left was pride and purpose. These communities had a strong sense of pride and self-belief. That has all gone. Unless we find a way to bring it back there will never be a fix for the decline.
Yes, but - it's possible to over-romanticise the coal mining era. Pride and self-belief, yes, but there were a lot of hard jobs, not especially well-paid, which led to an early death. And comradeship, yes, but it tended to be a very insular community from which escape was hard. There are good and bad aspects to this, of course. And of course secure jobs have gone everywhere. We no longer expect a job for life in Manchester, just as we no longer expect a job for life in Wigan. It's just easier to find another one in Manchester.
That said, mining nowadays would no doubt be a different proposition: higher skill and less labour intensive. A good job if you could get it, but employing far fewer people.
Mining was indeed a hard job - I get reminded of this frequently at a local memorial to those killed in a mining accident - but it _was_ well paid.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
Wears mustard coloured cords and a barber jacket. Talks extremely posh. Absolutely a posho.
Barbour
Even knowing the spelling is a class marker.
Poshos wear Barbours when doing unspeakable posh things to innocent wildlife in the mud and rain. Actually these days they wear green Mustos which cost even more and work about equally badly. Wearing the things clean, on telly, in the city is trying too hard. but yes, Dulwich, so he is probably lower middle posh.
And don't get me started on covert coats, they are for hacking to the covert in.
Hipster poshos should wear Filson which costs yet more, dunno how many posho hipsters there are though.
Oooh I like the look of tin cloth
Also their rather coy note about the fuller figured US gentleman: All Filson sizes are US sizes which can be larger for a European stature, so we recommend sizing down.
You would look a bit of a twat if you wrestled a bird from a picker up or took it from your dog and stuffed it in the Tin Cloth Game Bag before you headed over to the next drive.
Wouldn't want to look a twat when doing that kind of thing.
You know how we Brits like to dress up.
Whatabout that!! I have a fine collection of tweed jackets and a tweed suit, but the only kilts I have are my dad's old moth-eaten ones, never worn. I still know which looks more twattish though.
If you're all good I may give you an Indy thread on Sunday.
A thread on the Catalonian Indy movement would certainly be relevant at the moment given the inconclusive Spanish election with Catalan Nationalists hold the balance of power
That's a good point.
If @felix is OK (haven't seen him around recently) maybe he could do a guest thread?
Incidentally, the Spanish situation demonstrates the key reason why Britain should eschew PR: successive governments would be beholden to Scottish nationalists.
Every electoral system has pluses and minuses. PR in Britain would operate to destabilise the union.
The SNP (and SF and PC for that matter) win more seats under FPTP than they would under PR. FPTP is destabilising the union.
FPTP rewards a geographically concentrated vote, so it always rewards separatists.
Logic fail. These parties don't campaign across the UK. So whether the vote is concentrated ir not is irrelevant.
Plus FPTP has the same distorting effect with the more UK wide parties. Just llok at the bit of the Labour Party that is in Scotland. Some electionms it's had far more than its share, others, fewer.
More fundamentally, we elect MPs. Not parties on a regional list, which is what your argument seeks, ultimately.
Edit: the single constituency by definition rewards geographically concentrated votes, for all parties. What happens elsewhere is irrelevant in first principle.
There are arguments for and against FPTP and for and against various forms of PR. (I'd favour STV over a regional list system, or at least a list system with intra-party list choice.) If you accept the logic of FPTP and want that, fair enough, that's your choice.
I'm just saying that Gardenwalker is mistaken on this particular point, that PR would destabilise the union. How FPTP works, whether you go with its logic or not, means that party's with geographically concentrated votes, which is how separatist parties work, do well from it.
If you want an electoral system that does not destabilise the union, you want a system that looks at votes over a larger area.
Wasn't expressing a personal choice - just struck by the arguments pro and con. The SNP has always (well, within my living memory) been for electoral reform (which would mean that they lose some seats in some elections but don't do so badly in other years).
And parties with geographically concentrated votes would do well from it if they had the same votes pro rata across the UK.
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle. The point about separatist parties is that they don't have the same votes pro rata across the UK and cannot. Separatist parties often build support on grievance politics against other parts of the country. That's a more successful formula under an electoral system with smaller constituencies and no ordinality, i.e. FPTP.
Surely if your grandmother had wheels she would be a dalek.
Texas woman arrested for threatening to murder the Trump judge.
“In a post [sent out by Trump & written by his ally], the lawyer Mike Davis, a large photo of Judge Chutkan accompanied text that falsely claimed she had ‘openly admitted she’s running election interference against Trump.’” That triggered the murder threat https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1692114464638685245
I am definitely posh but have enough intelligence to realise that Keir Starmer is in no way posh, despite that being something the Tories like to throw at him.
They seem to fail to realise that not only is Rishi Sunak posh, he's also an arsehole.
Poshness is fascinating. I know a couple - in manner, she is posh for Manchester (listens to radio 4, trills rather than laughs, quite RP, talks about the arts), he is not (Lancashire accent, talks about football) - and then you find out a bit about their respective backgrounds; her father ran a garage, and while he passed his 11+ he couldn't go because his parents couldn't afford the shoes; while his father went to one of the more famous public schools in London, rebelled against his parents wealth, and made his life in a not-particularly-affluent suburb of Rochdale.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
You are both right and wrong on this. Obviously I live in one of these rust belt communities and the vote for Brexit was not a surprise at all.
There _were_ jobs - more than there were for many years post de-mining - but they were not very well paid. The perception in many quarters, right or wrong, was that this was due to competition from an endless supply of cheap labour from eastern Europe. The removal of a large local factory to Italy with EU money / legislation also didn't help (although that factory had been struggling for many years).
Prior to the pandemic I frequented a number of WMCs or ex-WMCs (many of which are closing down or are only kept running by legacies from companies which no longer exist). I did not hear any direct racism or mutterings about furriners as per the stereotype but there was a definite air that something needed to change.
Brexit probably _has_ helped in some industries and pay has gone up. Unfortunately with externally imposed inflation, that pay rise hasn't gone very far. People are still struggling.
The one thing that helps is that houses are still relatively cheap.
The main problem is none of these things though. The problem is that the London hoovers up all the talent. Why stay in the rustbelt? It has become a vicious circle.
"Levelling up" was a good slogan - a shame it turned out to be just that and nothing more.
Driving through the former Durham or South Yorkshire coalfields its very clear what happened. The jobs for life with comradeship went. New jobs did pop up, but in the form of distribution warehouses. There seem to be DCs and new link roads in so many of these places, where the secure and decently paid jobs have gone and instead there are transitory and poorly paid jobs requiring little skill.
What left was pride and purpose. These communities had a strong sense of pride and self-belief. That has all gone. Unless we find a way to bring it back there will never be a fix for the decline.
Yes, but - it's possible to over-romanticise the coal mining era. Pride and self-belief, yes, but there were a lot of hard jobs, not especially well-paid, which led to an early death. And comradeship, yes, but it tended to be a very insular community from which escape was hard. There are good and bad aspects to this, of course. And of course secure jobs have gone everywhere. We no longer expect a job for life in Manchester, just as we no longer expect a job for life in Wigan. It's just easier to find another one in Manchester.
That said, mining nowadays would no doubt be a different proposition: higher skill and less labour intensive. A good job if you could get it, but employing far fewer people.
Opencast mining - highly automated, with most workers in air-conditioned cabs, with air filtration - is often a high paid job. As you say, many fewer workers. See Australian mines.
EDIT: that they had to resort to conscription to the mines, in WWII, is indicative.
Well that's a bad start to the day. Michael Parkinson. Despite having no particular talents, ever since I was a small boy I have felt 'special', bound for prominence in some way, and how this would typically manifest was in imagining my future appearance(s) on prime time Parky; being interviewed by the great man himself, holding him and the audience (ie the nation) spellbound with sophisticated racontage from my storied life. As the years rolled by the dream faded but it never quite died, I'd still every so often indulge in it (latest being just last week). But it's dead now. That's it. RIP the man, RIP my dream of being somebody. I've grown up this morning.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
The posh people I went to school with - their families wouldn't have invited him round for tea.
He always came across as Arthur Daley to me.
This just illustrates how poshness is an entirely relative concept. If he doesn't seem posh to you, could it be that you are posher than he is? I mean, he seems posh to me because I am less posh than he is, but plenty of people think I am posh even though my background is just basic middle class.
Different metrics.
I'm definitely not posh in the sense I mean (old money, land) - got invited for tea, but wasn't "one of them". I'm middle class (very) but can socialise with them. Then again, I can't recall any group of people I *can't* socialise with.
You are using the money, clothes, aspirations metric, I think. The difference is that anyone can put on that uniform. To the people I'm talking about, that is stupid cosplay at best. At worst, it is indicating that someone is very rum.
“So you think this chap is as much in society as we were, do you?”
I preferred not to think so myself. We had cause enough for jealousy without that. But Raffles raised his eyebrows an eloquent half-inch.
“As much, my dear Bunny? He is not only in it, but of it; there’s no comparison between us there. Society is in rings like a target, and we never were in the bull’s-eye, however thick you may lay on the ink!
I think you have to have gone to a certain kind of school and been around these people enough to read their rituals and be a part of their world - even if both you and they recognise you are are ultimately not "one if them". You might be unaware of how closed off that world is for the rest of us. To me anyone who exists in that ecosystem seems posh - I don't have the inside knowledge to differentiate clearly within it. For working class people who haven't been to university perhaps it's similar - to them Ed Miliband and David Cameron probably seem equally posh even though I can recognise that they're not, because I went to university with people like them and can recognise that they come from different tribes.
There's always those Hugh Grant / Richard Curtis films ?
Wasn't Amber Rudd employed as a kind of poshness consultant on Four Weddings?
Yes. She says it was because she was the only person whose friends had their own morning suits and the production couldn't afford to hire any.
I once had my own morning suit - it was my grandfathers, so looked a great deal posher than me. The 28in waist long since rendered it unwearable, sadly.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
Texas woman arrested for threatening to murder the Trump judge.
“In a post [sent out by Trump & written by his ally], the lawyer Mike Davis, a large photo of Judge Chutkan accompanied text that falsely claimed she had ‘openly admitted she’s running election interference against Trump.’” That triggered the murder threat https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1692114464638685245
Anyone but Trump would likely be jailed for such attacks on judges.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
There is a great documentary somewhere about Lee Selby, the boxer. He grew up in Barry. And a more bleak depiction of life in modern Britain it is difficult to imagine and yes, this was going on for years hence my response to @Malmesbury that it was people looking for a way out/up and the politicians pitched to them that Brexit was it.
I think it fair to say that for both sides, BREXIT became a totem for larger issues.
Yes, the divide between Remainia and Leaverstan has been around for some time; Brexit just allowed us to give it a name. That said, those bits of Leaverstan that I am familiar with are not without hope. Blyth, Wigan, Amber Valley, Chesterfield/NE Derbys; these places are much improved from what they were 20 years ago. This is not, AFAICS, down to any one thing in particular anyone has done, though there will be dozens of individual policy success stories at local and national level. Rather, it is because Remainia is becoming too expensive. Young middle class couples can't afford to live in Gosforth any more, so they live in Blyth, and take their spending with them.
There may be parts of Leaverstan that are bleaker than they were 20 years ago, or no less bleak, but I haven't come across them (I wouldn't be surprised if it takes rather more to push people to move to Easington than it does to Blyth). Wales may be a special case, as it seems perversely determined to be permanently poor.
Well Blyth will gentrify within the next 20 years as a trendy commuter town with its renewable energy industry and its new railway to Newcastle.
It certainly has a huge potential for it that's for sure. Probably the next Whitley Bay.
And meanwhile, Whitley Bay is becoming - what? Something far chichier than the Whitley Bay of the 1990s, at any rate. Still the coldest seaside resort I have ever been to, mind! They can't gentrify that. OTOH, surprisingly sunny. Would be a lovely place to live.
I've got a mate who lives in Whitley Bay, it looks mint now, like South East London but by the sea and with more affordable houses. I remember it in the eighties, Spanish City etc, even as a primary age kid I could tell it was a bit rough. Cullercoats has a nicer beach.
I visited Whitley Bay, in December of all times, and it seemed a pretty nice place. Went for half a day’s walk up and down the path on top of the beach. There’s way worse coastal towns in the UK.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
There is a great documentary somewhere about Lee Selby, the boxer. He grew up in Barry. And a more bleak depiction of life in modern Britain it is difficult to imagine and yes, this was going on for years hence my response to @Malmesbury that it was people looking for a way out/up and the politicians pitched to them that Brexit was it.
I think it fair to say that for both sides, BREXIT became a totem for larger issues.
Yes, the divide between Remainia and Leaverstan has been around for some time; Brexit just allowed us to give it a name. That said, those bits of Leaverstan that I am familiar with are not without hope. Blyth, Wigan, Amber Valley, Chesterfield/NE Derbys; these places are much improved from what they were 20 years ago. This is not, AFAICS, down to any one thing in particular anyone has done, though there will be dozens of individual policy success stories at local and national level. Rather, it is because Remainia is becoming too expensive. Young middle class couples can't afford to live in Gosforth any more, so they live in Blyth, and take their spending with them.
There may be parts of Leaverstan that are bleaker than they were 20 years ago, or no less bleak, but I haven't come across them (I wouldn't be surprised if it takes rather more to push people to move to Easington than it does to Blyth). Wales may be a special case, as it seems perversely determined to be permanently poor.
Well Blyth will gentrify within the next 20 years as a trendy commuter town with its renewable energy industry and its new railway to Newcastle.
It certainly has a huge potential for it that's for sure. Probably the next Whitley Bay.
And meanwhile, Whitley Bay is becoming - what? Something far chichier than the Whitley Bay of the 1990s, at any rate. Still the coldest seaside resort I have ever been to, mind! They can't gentrify that. OTOH, surprisingly sunny. Would be a lovely place to live.
I've got a mate who lives in Whitley Bay, it looks mint now, like South East London but by the sea and with more affordable houses. I remember it in the eighties, Spanish City etc, even as a primary age kid I could tell it was a bit rough. Cullercoats has a nicer beach.
I visited Whitley Bay, in December of all times, and it seemed a pretty nice place. Went for half a day’s walk up and down the path on top of the beach. There’s way worse coastal towns in the UK.
If we are talking Tyneside Beaches it's remarkable how improved Tynemouth / Cullercoats and Whitley Bay is compared to say South Shields...
30 years ago it was very much reversed with South Shields way nicer than Whitley Bay.
There does seem to be a certain size of town say where the population is roughly 100-200,000 that has suffered greatly over the past 15 years with the shops that used to target that size of market completely disappearing...
South Shields, Gateshead, even Sunderland all have big problems with their high streets. Whitley Bay being slightly smaller has been able to reinvent its self..
Further south Stockton, Middlesbrough have similar issues. Yet Darlington seems to have hung on better than all the above. That will probably change next year though when Scotch Corner Designer Outlet opens..
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
This place doesn't have any real influence anyway. Its main reason for existence is so that betting markets can be talked up, years or months or weeks before they close, allowing those who enjoy access to high-quality information channels to make money in the last few hours that markets are open. ("Liquidity", in the parlance.)
Those who aren't in the in-crowd who want some high-grade last-minute info go to another site that isn't this one, and no it's not Conservative Home. Ask Andy_JS.
When I did hang out here, I generally ignored posts by Barty, Foxy (another complete moron - thinks he's a logician but is professionally incapable of seeing the big picture outside his tiny little bubble, like all moneygrabbing medics), and Cycle Free. Let's just say intelligence doesn't go together with being a boring c*nt. Being a boring c*nt is a way of saying "Don't listen to me". This one isn't rocket science.
Good idea to leave, @Leon. I don't agree with important elements of your angle, but who cares? It's groupthinky herd minds ville here.
Your main problem is that you constantly have to tell everyone what a great life you lead, how your life is just how you want it, etc. Oh today's meal, you enjoyed it so much. On and on like that. There's only one thing that means. It's a bit like when someone keeps telling you "I'm not lying to you". They always are lying. No exceptions. But good luck. Enjoy not being here. I will too.
Over and out.
Superb post even if I disagreed with mostly every word. Much more thoughtful than Leon's attention seeking about aliens.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
Is why I clarified that it draws a particular type of response. Not just a "no and here's why..", but as though a line has been crossed and right thinking subverted.
We disagree about everything Brexit, say. But when we discuss it we don't think in believing whatever we believe about widget standards that there is an orthodoxy which one of us is violating. Sure it all gets heated and why not - it's what makes PB PB.
But with the Ukrainian war it is different. Many on PB have created an orthodoxy and the response to any post which in any way is perceived to contravene this has a unique character.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
Is why I clarified that it draws a particular type of response. Not just a "no and here's why..", but as though a line has been crossed and right thinking subverted.
We disagree about everything Brexit, say. But when we discuss it we don't think in believing whatever we believe about widget standards that there is an orthodoxy which one of us is violating. Sure it all gets heated and why not - it's what makes PB PB.
But with the Ukrainian war it is different. Many on PB have created an orthodoxy and the response to any post which in any way is perceived to contravene this has a unique character.
Some people absolutely do believe there is an orthodoxy violated wrt Brexit.
Many absolutely do regarding lockdown.
Suggest that death is a natural part of life and that lockdown was a mistake, even though it means more people would have died had we not locked down, and people respond like I'm literally suggesting we go around murdering people.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
There is a great documentary somewhere about Lee Selby, the boxer. He grew up in Barry. And a more bleak depiction of life in modern Britain it is difficult to imagine and yes, this was going on for years hence my response to @Malmesbury that it was people looking for a way out/up and the politicians pitched to them that Brexit was it.
I think it fair to say that for both sides, BREXIT became a totem for larger issues.
Yes, the divide between Remainia and Leaverstan has been around for some time; Brexit just allowed us to give it a name. That said, those bits of Leaverstan that I am familiar with are not without hope. Blyth, Wigan, Amber Valley, Chesterfield/NE Derbys; these places are much improved from what they were 20 years ago. This is not, AFAICS, down to any one thing in particular anyone has done, though there will be dozens of individual policy success stories at local and national level. Rather, it is because Remainia is becoming too expensive. Young middle class couples can't afford to live in Gosforth any more, so they live in Blyth, and take their spending with them.
There may be parts of Leaverstan that are bleaker than they were 20 years ago, or no less bleak, but I haven't come across them (I wouldn't be surprised if it takes rather more to push people to move to Easington than it does to Blyth). Wales may be a special case, as it seems perversely determined to be permanently poor.
Well Blyth will gentrify within the next 20 years as a trendy commuter town with its renewable energy industry and its new railway to Newcastle.
It certainly has a huge potential for it that's for sure. Probably the next Whitley Bay.
And meanwhile, Whitley Bay is becoming - what? Something far chichier than the Whitley Bay of the 1990s, at any rate. Still the coldest seaside resort I have ever been to, mind! They can't gentrify that. OTOH, surprisingly sunny. Would be a lovely place to live.
I've got a mate who lives in Whitley Bay, it looks mint now, like South East London but by the sea and with more affordable houses. I remember it in the eighties, Spanish City etc, even as a primary age kid I could tell it was a bit rough. Cullercoats has a nicer beach.
They've done a superb job on restoring Spanish City. Now a high end fish and chip restaurant. With a champagne bar on the upper floors.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
Is why I clarified that it draws a particular type of response. Not just a "no and here's why..", but as though a line has been crossed and right thinking subverted.
We disagree about everything Brexit, say. But when we discuss it we don't think in believing whatever we believe about widget standards that there is an orthodoxy which one of us is violating. Sure it all gets heated and why not - it's what makes PB PB.
But with the Ukrainian war it is different. Many on PB have created an orthodoxy and the response to any post which in any way is perceived to contravene this has a unique character.
Is it 'an orthodoxy', or is it just that support for Ukraine (as in the country as a whole) is the position of quite a large majority ? And it's not unique at all - Scot Nats get a similar pile on (often much less rational).
Is it 'an orthodoxy', or is it just that support for Ukraine (as in the country as a whole) is the position of quite a large majority ? And it's not unique at all - Scot Nats get a similar pile on (often much less rational).
Is it 'an orthodoxy', or is it just that support for Ukraine (as in the country as a whole) is the position of quite a large majority ? And it's not unique at all - Scot Nats get a similar pile on (often much less rational).
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Also, reading yesterday's posts, @Gardenwalker and @HYUFD are bang on the money. Things got ugly post-Brexit on PB and the UK is now divided along Remain/Leave lines.
What a time to be an historian in fifty years time.
In Leaverstan thing were ugly *before* Brexit. That is why we saw such a massive turnout of non-voters to vote for it.
I'm not talking about southern well-off pensioners with a wartime fetish. They vote anyway. I'm talking about the poor sods stuck in rust belt communities where just like in Bon Jovi's Dry County where the jobs are gone and the money's gone and people were hanging on.
These communities were utterly broken, a perpetual state of decay and decline. A few "executive" housing developments built on an old pit is not enough to rescue them. The sad thing is that post-Brexit they are even worse. The promised moon on a stick has not been delivered...
There is a great documentary somewhere about Lee Selby, the boxer. He grew up in Barry. And a more bleak depiction of life in modern Britain it is difficult to imagine and yes, this was going on for years hence my response to @Malmesbury that it was people looking for a way out/up and the politicians pitched to them that Brexit was it.
I think it fair to say that for both sides, BREXIT became a totem for larger issues.
Yes, the divide between Remainia and Leaverstan has been around for some time; Brexit just allowed us to give it a name. That said, those bits of Leaverstan that I am familiar with are not without hope. Blyth, Wigan, Amber Valley, Chesterfield/NE Derbys; these places are much improved from what they were 20 years ago. This is not, AFAICS, down to any one thing in particular anyone has done, though there will be dozens of individual policy success stories at local and national level. Rather, it is because Remainia is becoming too expensive. Young middle class couples can't afford to live in Gosforth any more, so they live in Blyth, and take their spending with them.
There may be parts of Leaverstan that are bleaker than they were 20 years ago, or no less bleak, but I haven't come across them (I wouldn't be surprised if it takes rather more to push people to move to Easington than it does to Blyth). Wales may be a special case, as it seems perversely determined to be permanently poor.
Well Blyth will gentrify within the next 20 years as a trendy commuter town with its renewable energy industry and its new railway to Newcastle.
It certainly has a huge potential for it that's for sure. Probably the next Whitley Bay.
And meanwhile, Whitley Bay is becoming - what? Something far chichier than the Whitley Bay of the 1990s, at any rate. Still the coldest seaside resort I have ever been to, mind! They can't gentrify that. OTOH, surprisingly sunny. Would be a lovely place to live.
I've got a mate who lives in Whitley Bay, it looks mint now, like South East London but by the sea and with more affordable houses. I remember it in the eighties, Spanish City etc, even as a primary age kid I could tell it was a bit rough. Cullercoats has a nicer beach.
They've done a superb job on restoring Spanish City. Now a high end fish and chip restaurant. With a champagne bar on the upper floors.
Likewise South Shields sea front is rather nice and I would highly recommend Colman's Seafood Temple, it's just the town centre that has problems.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
Except your facts are wrong again.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
Except your facts are wrong again.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
The idea this is going to happen seems for the birds. Without murdering Russia which I feel is the implication, how on Earth do you expect to achieve this?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
Except your facts are wrong again.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
The idea this is going to happen seems for the birds. Without murdering Russia which I feel is the implication, how on Earth do you expect to achieve this?
By liberating the land, same as how Kharkiv and Kherson were liberated.
If you're all good I may give you an Indy thread on Sunday.
A thread on the Catalonian Indy movement would certainly be relevant at the moment given the inconclusive Spanish election with Catalan Nationalists hold the balance of power
That's a good point.
If @felix is OK (haven't seen him around recently) maybe he could do a guest thread?
Incidentally, the Spanish situation demonstrates the key reason why Britain should eschew PR: successive governments would be beholden to Scottish nationalists.
Every electoral system has pluses and minuses. PR in Britain would operate to destabilise the union.
The SNP (and SF and PC for that matter) win more seats under FPTP than they would under PR. FPTP is destabilising the union.
FPTP rewards a geographically concentrated vote, so it always rewards separatists.
Gardenwalker, this is what FPTP does:
2019 general election
SNP: 48 MPs, official third party status at PMQs 1,242,380 votes
LibDem: 11 MPs 3,696,419 votes
The (unionist) party with three times as many votes gets fewer than a quarter of as many seats. A separatist party gets awarded with a higher profile.
Or:
Plaid Cymru: 4 MPs 153,265 votes
Green Party: 1 MP 835,597 votes
Didn't UKIP get about 15% of the vote at a GE and only returned 1 MP? You don't have to be a kipper to feel the injustice of that.
12.6% of the vote, 1 MP, in 2015. Slightly more votes than the LibDems and SNP put together, who got 64 MPs between them.
The SDLP got 3 MPs with less than 1/38th of the UKIP vote.
The SNP got the third most MPs (56 versus 8 for the LibDems and 8 for the DUP) yet were only fifth in votes (behind Con, Lad, UKIP, LD).
Sure, but the SNP stood in far fewer constituencies, so in that sense they were handicapping themselves. That's where the argument for fairness falls down. As noted below, consider the Labour party as one whole, or as Scottish Labour + rUK Labour as they overtly claim to be at elections. The result is the same bvut the fairness analysis quite different.
Carnyx, you could just have said he was talking absolute bollox and applying usual unionist lies around fudging teh figures to detriment of SNP. They cannot help themselves being so biased.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
There is definitely a pattern of shutting people down who are not 100% on "just fuck Russia into the ground".
I don't think that's entirely fair, nor do I get the impression you are shut down on this issue.
I do think there's some conflation of what people think Ukraine should do and how much those outside of Ukraine should support what that country is doing.
FWIW I believe Ukraine has choices, all of them bad. I am not convinced their current choice of energetically facing down Russian aggression is the worst of those choices. I can explain my reasons why I think it might be the least worst choice for them. It is in any case the choice they have made.
I don't see any reason why we wouldn't support Ukraine in fighting on, if that's what they choose to do.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
Except your facts are wrong again.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
The idea this is going to happen seems for the birds. Without murdering Russia which I feel is the implication, how on Earth do you expect to achieve this?
Crimea is very vulnerable. The land link is from Ukraine not Russia. You could get to a point where there is a political solution. The idea that Crimea is existential for Russia is laughable. The equivalent in size terms for Great Britain would be the Isle Of Wight.
And I don't know what you mean by 'murdering' Russia.
Texas woman arrested for threatening to murder the Trump judge.
“In a post [sent out by Trump & written by his ally], the lawyer Mike Davis, a large photo of Judge Chutkan accompanied text that falsely claimed she had ‘openly admitted she’s running election interference against Trump.’” That triggered the murder threat https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1692114464638685245
“When federal agents visited Ms. Shry at home three days after she left the message for Judge Chutkan, she admitted that she had called the judge’s chambers, the complaint said. Ms. Shry told the agents that she had no plans to go to Washington or to Houston, the area that Ms. Lee represents. But she also said that “if Sheila Jackson Lee comes to Alvin, then we need to worry,” according to the complaint.”
The last sentence is a good example of what not to say to federal agents investigating threats you’ve made.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
Which rather assumes that the Ukrainians will do what they’re told.
If we have to give something to the imperialists in Moscow, what about the revanchists you will create in Ukraine?
The maths is fairly obvious - they will dig the plutonium out of the cooling ponds around the reactors and build a bomb. Given the US tested a device with more than 20% 240, so called civil plutonium.. isn’t.
Why do you think the Russians are demanding the right to seize the power stations. And why do you think the US is reluctant to have over heavy, long ranged missiles?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
The only people who can decide on whether to negotiate a settlement are the Ukrainian people (note @Nigelb that has always been my position). Now, whether the US will dictate at some point when that moment comes I have no idea. But if they want to keep on fighting then they should keep on fighting.
Which brings us onto our response. You and I have crossed swords before on this because you have said (IIRC) words to the effect of we should do anything it takes to bring about a Ukrainian victory. I demurred because transparently obviously we are not doing that now and have no intention of doing it in future.
We have even discussed the use of nuclear weapons which you have advocated (again IIRC, and lead us to a somewhat absurd discussion about (me inferring that) you wanted to sacrifice your children to liberate Ukraine). I do not want a nuclear holocaust in order to regain Crimea for Ukraine - whatever that would mean after a nuclear holocaust.
But the point is that when (not shut down) posters opine on the war, unless they tow the PB party line and adhere to the orthodoxy the response is weirdly vituperative.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
Well said as usual, TOPPING.
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
Except your facts are wrong again.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
The idea this is going to happen seems for the birds. Without murdering Russia which I feel is the implication, how on Earth do you expect to achieve this?
Crimea is very vulnerable. The land link is from Ukraine not Russia. You could get to a point where there is a political solution. The idea that Crimea is existential for Russia is laughable. The equivalent in size terms for Great Britain would be the Isle Of Wight....
Remembering the furore a while ago, when it was suggested that France might cut off the power supply to one of the Channel islands, that's perhaps not a killer point.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
Actually, lockdown is a good example. Look at the vitriol poured upon people who said - at the time - that they were mistaken. It was PB groupthink and posts condemned that point of view in terms which went beyond argument or reason but simply appealed to "what was right" - the orthodoxy was that of course lockdowns are justified and no dissent could be tolerated.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
You seem to spend far more time saying you're not allowed to give your view on Ukraine than giving your view on Ukraine. In fact this seems to be your main view on Ukraine - that you can't give it.
Mr. Booth, my understanding is the land approach is pretty difficult to Crimea. Against that, blowing the dam meant Russia destroyed the water channel that was responsible for 85% of Crimea's water. That's exactly indicative of long term planning. But they're never going to let Sevastopol[sp] go if they can help it.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
The only people who can decide on whether to negotiate a settlement are the Ukrainian people (note @Nigelb that has always been my position)...
Crimea is very vulnerable. The land link is from Ukraine not Russia. You could get to a point where there is a political solution. The idea that Crimea is existential for Russia is laughable. The equivalent in size terms for Great Britain would be the Isle Of Wight.
And I don't know what you mean by 'murdering' Russia.
Thank you for engaging with me.
In order to achieve a pre-2014 settlement, it seems to me that Russia will have to be completely annihilated, which in practice either means having Putin deposed and installing a pro-western leader (not going to happen), or bombing them to death, with or without nukes.
I just do not see a situation within the current conflict that will present a 2014-era situation without some kind of catastrophe on either side, which probably means the US getting involved for some reason. They won't want to do that so it will be a stalemate.
I believe this war will resolve nothing and will achieve nothing, it will not return to pre-2014 though, I am fairly confident of that - but as we know my predictions have never been particular good
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
The only people who can decide on whether to negotiate a settlement are the Ukrainian people (note @Nigelb that has always been my position). Now, whether the US will dictate at some point when that moment comes I have no idea. But if they want to keep on fighting then they should keep on fighting.
Which brings us onto our response. You and I have crossed swords before on this because you have said (IIRC) words to the effect of we should do anything it takes to bring about a Ukrainian victory. I demurred because transparently obviously we are not doing that now and have no intention of doing it in future.
We have even discussed the use of nuclear weapons which you have advocated (again IIRC, and lead us to a somewhat absurd discussion about (me inferring that) you wanted to sacrifice your children to liberate Ukraine). I do not want a nuclear holocaust in order to regain Crimea for Ukraine - whatever that would mean after a nuclear holocaust.
But the point is that when (not shut down) posters opine on the war, unless they tow the PB party line and adhere to the orthodoxy the response is weirdly vituperative.
In fairness, I think it was armchair field marshal Josias that used the trite "anything it takes" line. Bart has been much more measured. He made a reasonable answer yesterday calling for strong backing while not committing any Nato troops.
There is definitely a pattern of shutting people down who are not 100% on "just fuck Russia into the ground".
No, there isn't. You're still here.
There's a pattern of responding to people, that's how conversations work online.
The conversation is shutting people down for having a different opinion. And as you piped up to respond I suspect you know that.
Nobody on here, by definition, has been shut down, People who have been shut down includes @RodCrosby, @isam, @StuartDickson, @MrEd, and now @DJ41bis and his predecessors. Even banned commenters come back under different names, such as [redacted] and [redacted]. Enough of this "people disagree with me online"="shutting down" malarkey, please
In fairness, I think it was armchair field marshal Josias that used the trite "anything it takes" line. Bart has been much more measured. He made a reasonable answer yesterday calling for strong backing while not committing any Nato troops.
I wasn't wishing to accuse Bart of anything in particular, just some of the posts I have seen have essentially advocated destroying Russia in order to free Ukraine.
I just do not see how we go back to a pre-2014 situation at the moment, Putin isn't going to do it and any replacement will surely be even more hardline.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
I don’t know what will happen with Ukraine, but I don’t see why Russia being completely destroyed is the only outcome that could get us to the pre-2014 borders. Moscow has historically completely withdrawn from a variety of situation without the complete destruction of the country: from Finland, from Afghanistan, from the Warsaw Pact countries, from the other SSRs (including Ukraine) when the USSR was dissolved.
There is definitely a pattern of shutting people down who are not 100% on "just fuck Russia into the ground".
No, there isn't. You're still here.
There's a pattern of responding to people, that's how conversations work online.
The conversation is shutting people down for having a different opinion. And as you piped up to respond I suspect you know that.
Nobody on here, by definition, has been shut down, People who have been shut down includes @RodCrosby, @isam, @StuartDickson, @MrEd, and now @DJ41bis and his predecessors. Even banned commenters come back under different names, such as [redacted] and [redacted]. Enough of this "people disagree with me online"="shutting down" malarkey, please
I would like to speak up for @CorrectHorseBattery, who has been shut down and not been allowed back
But the point is that when (not shut down) posters opine on the war, unless they tow the PB party line and adhere to the orthodoxy the response is weirdly vituperative.
It's not really vituperation because none of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Ukraine on here are that good at bantz in general or insults in particular.
If you're all good I may give you an Indy thread on Sunday.
A thread on the Catalonian Indy movement would certainly be relevant at the moment given the inconclusive Spanish election with Catalan Nationalists hold the balance of power
That's a good point.
If @felix is OK (haven't seen him around recently) maybe he could do a guest thread?
Incidentally, the Spanish situation demonstrates the key reason why Britain should eschew PR: successive governments would be beholden to Scottish nationalists.
Every electoral system has pluses and minuses. PR in Britain would operate to destabilise the union.
The SNP (and SF and PC for that matter) win more seats under FPTP than they would under PR. FPTP is destabilising the union.
FPTP rewards a geographically concentrated vote, so it always rewards separatists.
Gardenwalker, this is what FPTP does:
2019 general election
SNP: 48 MPs, official third party status at PMQs 1,242,380 votes
LibDem: 11 MPs 3,696,419 votes
The (unionist) party with three times as many votes gets fewer than a quarter of as many seats. A separatist party gets awarded with a higher profile.
Or:
Plaid Cymru: 4 MPs 153,265 votes
Green Party: 1 MP 835,597 votes
Didn't UKIP get about 15% of the vote at a GE and only returned 1 MP? You don't have to be a kipper to feel the injustice of that.
12.6% of the vote, 1 MP, in 2015. Slightly more votes than the LibDems and SNP put together, who got 64 MPs between them.
The SDLP got 3 MPs with less than 1/38th of the UKIP vote.
The SNP got the third most MPs (56 versus 8 for the LibDems and 8 for the DUP) yet were only fifth in votes (behind Con, Lad, UKIP, LD).
Sure, but the SNP stood in far fewer constituencies, so in that sense they were handicapping themselves. That's where the argument for fairness falls down. As noted below, consider the Labour party as one whole, or as Scottish Labour + rUK Labour as they overtly claim to be at elections. The result is the same bvut the fairness analysis quite different.
Carnyx, you could just have said he was talking absolute bollox and applying usual unionist lies around fudging teh figures to detriment of SNP.
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
Wears mustard coloured cords and a barber jacket. Talks extremely posh. Absolutely a posho.
Barbour
Even knowing the spelling is a class marker.
Poshos wear Barbours when doing unspeakable posh things to innocent wildlife in the mud and rain. Actually these days they wear green Mustos which cost even more and work about equally badly. Wearing the things clean, on telly, in the city is trying too hard. but yes, Dulwich, so he is probably lower middle posh.
And don't get me started on covert coats, they are for hacking to the covert in.
Hipster poshos should wear Filson which costs yet more, dunno how many posho hipsters there are though.
Oooh I like the look of tin cloth
Also their rather coy note about the fuller figured US gentleman: All Filson sizes are US sizes which can be larger for a European stature, so we recommend sizing down.
You would look a bit of a twat if you wrestled a bird from a picker up or took it from your dog and stuffed it in the Tin Cloth Game Bag before you headed over to the next drive.
Wouldn't want to look a twat when doing that kind of thing.
But the point is that when (not shut down) posters opine on the war, unless they tow the PB party line and adhere to the orthodoxy the response is weirdly vituperative.
It's not really vituperation because none of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Ukraine on here are that good at bantz in general or insults in particular.
I am top quality banter, in fact they call me CorrectHorseBantz
There is definitely a pattern of shutting people down who are not 100% on "just fuck Russia into the ground".
No, there isn't. You're still here.
There's a pattern of responding to people, that's how conversations work online.
The conversation is shutting people down for having a different opinion. And as you piped up to respond I suspect you know that.
Nobody on here, by definition, has been shut down, People who have been shut down includes @RodCrosby, @isam, @StuartDickson, @MrEd, and now @DJ41bis and his predecessors. Even banned commenters come back under different names, such as [redacted] and [redacted]. Enough of this "people disagree with me online"="shutting down" malarkey, please
I would like to speak up for @CorrectHorseBattery, who has been shut down and not been allowed back
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
Where you been last 2 years and nuke heavy my arse.
There is definitely a pattern of shutting people down who are not 100% on "just fuck Russia into the ground".
No, there isn't. You're still here.
There's a pattern of responding to people, that's how conversations work online.
The conversation is shutting people down for having a different opinion. And as you piped up to respond I suspect you know that.
Nobody on here, by definition, has been shut down, People who have been shut down includes @RodCrosby, @isam, @StuartDickson, @MrEd, and now @DJ41bis and his predecessors. Even banned commenters come back under different names, such as [redacted] and [redacted]. Enough of this "people disagree with me online"="shutting down" malarkey, please
I would like to speak up for @CorrectHorseBattery, who has been shut down and not been allowed back
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I question the idea that we just make Russia lose is the solution to the problem. I think you're desperately naive if you think everything will be solved if/when they lose.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
I don't think everything will be solved if they lose.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
But how do you intend to achieve a pre-2014 situation without having Russia completely destroyed? I just fail to understand how you think this will be achieved without a very bloody, potentially nuke-heavy war.
Where you been last 2 years and nuke heavy my arse.
Good to chat with you once again malc, I maintain that a pre-2014 situation seems unlikely.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
What an extraordinary argument. And rather shocking that two users of the site have 'liked' it.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
What an extraordinary argument. And rather shocking that two users of the site have 'liked' it.
Which bit? Are you saying that humans have always had cars, always will have, and any suggestion to the contrary is deranged fantasy?
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
What an extraordinary argument. And rather shocking that two users of the site have 'liked' it.
Which bit? Are you saying that humans have always had cars, always will have, and any suggestion to the contrary is deranged fantasy?
3 A* and one A for my nephew, so off to Cambridge at a different College to his sister. Completely Comprehensive education, with no additional tutoring. Smart lad. Both are destined for great things.
Well done him! Must have taken a load of intelligence, self belief and hard work to get there. Cambridge is lucky to have him. But tell him to prepare for a lifetime of poshos like Nigel Farage telling him he is now a member of an out of touch elite.
Nigel Farrago is posh?
His father was a stockbroker. He went to a private school. He worked as a commodities trader. Seems posh.
The posh people I went to school with - their families wouldn't have invited him round for tea.
He always came across as Arthur Daley to me.
This just illustrates how poshness is an entirely relative concept. If he doesn't seem posh to you, could it be that you are posher than he is? I mean, he seems posh to me because I am less posh than he is, but plenty of people think I am posh even though my background is just basic middle class.
Different metrics.
I'm definitely not posh in the sense I mean (old money, land) - got invited for tea, but wasn't "one of them". I'm middle class (very) but can socialise with them. Then again, I can't recall any group of people I *can't* socialise with.
You are using the money, clothes, aspirations metric, I think. The difference is that anyone can put on that uniform. To the people I'm talking about, that is stupid cosplay at best. At worst, it is indicating that someone is very rum.
“So you think this chap is as much in society as we were, do you?”
I preferred not to think so myself. We had cause enough for jealousy without that. But Raffles raised his eyebrows an eloquent half-inch.
“As much, my dear Bunny? He is not only in it, but of it; there’s no comparison between us there. Society is in rings like a target, and we never were in the bull’s-eye, however thick you may lay on the ink!
I think you have to have gone to a certain kind of school and been around these people enough to read their rituals and be a part of their world - even if both you and they recognise you are are ultimately not "one if them". You might be unaware of how closed off that world is for the rest of us. To me anyone who exists in that ecosystem seems posh - I don't have the inside knowledge to differentiate clearly within it. For working class people who haven't been to university perhaps it's similar - to them Ed Miliband and David Cameron probably seem equally posh even though I can recognise that they're not, because I went to university with people like them and can recognise that they come from different tribes.
There's always those Hugh Grant / Richard Curtis films ?
Wasn't Amber Rudd employed as a kind of poshness consultant on Four Weddings?
I have no idea.
Posh is, I think, essentially cosplay. There are those who take cosplay very seriously, too.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
They have done nothing since February 2022 to put their nuclear arsenal on a higher alert. I think China and India have been pretty clear they would regard any nuclear escalation as intolerable.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
"whatever support they need for as long as they want"
@Anabobazina this is the sort of thing I was referring to.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
They have done nothing since February 2022 to put their nuclear arsenal on a higher alert. I think China and India have been pretty clear they would regard any nuclear escalation as intolerable.
I think a lot of people thought Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine...
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
"whatever support they need for as long as they want"
@Anabobazina this is the sort of thing I was referring to.
The problem is that anyone saying we do anything short of "anything" is seemingly letting the side down.
If you substitute Cap d'Antibes for Tescos and Plat de Fruits de Mer for Smoked Ham and Cheese Toasties then you have just the sort of comment that @DJ41bis loathes so much
This place doesn't have any real influence anyway. Its main reason for existence is so that betting markets can be talked up, years or months or weeks before they close, allowing those who enjoy access to high-quality information channels to make money in the last few hours that markets are open. ("Liquidity", in the parlance.)
Those who aren't in the in-crowd who want some high-grade last-minute info go to another site that isn't this one, and no it's not Conservative Home. Ask Andy_JS.
When I did hang out here, I generally ignored posts by Barty, Foxy (another complete moron - thinks he's a logician but is professionally incapable of seeing the big picture outside his tiny little bubble, like all moneygrabbing medics), and Cycle Free. Let's just say intelligence doesn't go together with being a boring c*nt. Being a boring c*nt is a way of saying "Don't listen to me". This one isn't rocket science.
Good idea to leave, @Leon. I don't agree with important elements of your angle, but who cares? It's groupthinky herd minds ville here.
Your main problem is that you constantly have to tell everyone what a great life you lead, how your life is just how you want it, etc. Oh today's meal, you enjoyed it so much. On and on like that. There's only one thing that means. It's a bit like when someone keeps telling you "I'm not lying to you". They always are lying. No exceptions. But good luck. Enjoy not being here. I will too.
Over and out.
Superb post even if I disagreed with mostly every word. Much more thoughtful than Leon's attention seeking about aliens.
It was just a load of verbal diahorrea from an arse in my opinion. Clown even says when "I did hang out here" when he obviously still does. A fanny for sure.
This place doesn't have any real influence anyway. Its main reason for existence is so that betting markets can be talked up, years or months or weeks before they close, allowing those who enjoy access to high-quality information channels to make money in the last few hours that markets are open. ("Liquidity", in the parlance.)
Those who aren't in the in-crowd who want some high-grade last-minute info go to another site that isn't this one, and no it's not Conservative Home. Ask Andy_JS.
When I did hang out here, I generally ignored posts by Barty, Foxy (another complete moron - thinks he's a logician but is professionally incapable of seeing the big picture outside his tiny little bubble, like all moneygrabbing medics), and Cycle Free. Let's just say intelligence doesn't go together with being a boring c*nt. Being a boring c*nt is a way of saying "Don't listen to me". This one isn't rocket science.
Good idea to leave, @Leon. I don't agree with important elements of your angle, but who cares? It's groupthinky herd minds ville here.
Your main problem is that you constantly have to tell everyone what a great life you lead, how your life is just how you want it, etc. Oh today's meal, you enjoyed it so much. On and on like that. There's only one thing that means. It's a bit like when someone keeps telling you "I'm not lying to you". They always are lying. No exceptions. But good luck. Enjoy not being here. I will too.
Over and out.
Superb post even if I disagreed with mostly every word. Much more thoughtful than Leon's attention seeking about aliens.
It was just a load of verbal diahorrea from an arse in my opinion. Clown even says when "I did hang out here" when he obviously still does. A fanny for sure.
We'd be much worse off if you left, I wouldn't have anyone to laugh at.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
Moscow has had nukes for about 70 years and never used them, not when losing in Afghanistan, not when their troops had to pull out of Eastern Europe, not when the USSR broke up.
Putin effectively rules Russia + a bit of Ukraine + a bit of Georgia. He has a lot to lose, notably being the kleptocratic ruler of Russia with a luxury lifestyle. If holding on to bits of Ukraine jeopardises that, I can see him giving up on Ukraine.
How widely discussed do you want this to be? It’s mentioned a few times every week on PB. I’ve seen articles on it in various major periodicals and newspapers.
The orthodoxy has lately for some started to spread beyond things like lockdown too @TOPPING - the same arguments used for lockdown are now being used on other subjects.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
No, it's what happens when you argue on the internet. You draw up non existent battle lines ("the anti-car brigade"), you promote cheesy movie lines to Eternal Verities ("life has risk, death is a natural part of life") from which you then argue individual cases, like the deaths of under 5 year old RTA victims, without acknowledging that, for instance, half the legislation on the statute book is designed to minimise risk and stave off death, and your level of zoom is locked at the point where it sees you happily driving your Octavia around Greater Manchester and you cannot conceive of things being any other way.
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
What an extraordinary argument. And rather shocking that two users of the site have 'liked' it.
Which bit? Are you saying that humans have always had cars, always will have, and any suggestion to the contrary is deranged fantasy?
I'm saying that humans have always striven toward greater freedom, wellbeing, and prosperity, always will do, and any suggestion to the contrary is a deranged fantasy. That includes personal transportation.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
It's not widely discussed because its not true.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
"whatever support they need for as long as they want"
@Anabobazina this is the sort of thing I was referring to.
Zelensky would have to be remarkably naive to believe that NATO will supply weapons without having a say in the end-game. I don’t believe he is.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
It's not widely discussed because its not true.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
It's not widely discussed because its not true.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
The Crimea is not Russia. Sevastopol is not Moscow.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
It's not widely discussed because its not true.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
Russia most certainly has nukes.
You said above we must do "whatever it takes".
Russia does have nukes and yes we should do whatever it takes. What's not true is what I responded to which was the claim "Putin has very little left to lose"
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
By liberating Ukraine's land, not by nuking Moscow.
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do not see all of Ukraine's land ever being liberated. That's not a reason not to try I just think realistically it isn't going to happen.
Why not?
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
They're not relevant because you don't want to talk about it. But the reality is that Russia has nukes - and Putin has very little left to lose.
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
It's not widely discussed because its not true.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
The Crimea is not Russia. Sevastopol is not Moscow.
Putin has Russia and Moscow left to lose. Which is why he's not using nukes. It's why nukes have never been used by a losing side in a conventional war.
Definitely not a russian bot - not a "mate" in there - and a cracking rant about all kinds, including PB Tories, who as someone upthread noted, is anyone to the right of Corbyn, and their polo-playing, fine wine drinking, breakfast in Kyrrbasystan-posting dilettantism.
Where he/she/it is bang on the money is that there are certain topics where it is not allowed to have a dissenting view (as in it draws a particular kind of vituperative response). The Russian invasion of Ukraine being one of them.
I find it amusing that any identification of the practicalities of the war, its historical context, or any hint that Ukrainian forces won't be sipping tea in the Kremlin by next Tuesday is met with a barrage of what I can only believe is insecurity and fear, manifest in the most gung ho (Russia will be defeated because Russia must be defeated) rhetoric.
And I see dj41 has now been banned, as they suspected they would be. Which is a huge shame. They said they didn't want to continue posting anyway so it's moot but it is such voices that we need here on PB. The lack of such voices, and the certain-topic Groupthink is I imagine one of the reasons that Leon gets so frustrated. Plus he was beginning to contemplate - burn him - that a negotiated settlement might be an idea to consider.
"Dissenting views are not allowed" says one of the half a dozen plus users who routinely post dissenting views, and routinely say they are not allowed to.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
PB Toy Soldiers vs PB Toy Kissingers
UNless the Toy Soldiers are Games Warehouse ones, in which case they form a completely different category.
Comments
Posh is, I think, essentially cosplay.
There are those who take cosplay very seriously, too.
What’s that? Did I hear you say it’s no longer available?
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/23728110.ukrainian-twins-studying-harrogate-achieve-top-grades/
Refugees, Young (photogenic) girls and decent results.
The only flaw is they sensible refused to be pictured jumping...
For years there seem to be some eerie similarities between Corbyn and Trump, though Trump is definitely the worst of the two (Corbyn's supporters just liked to act like they won the first election they lost, not overthrow the election).
It seems like a second election might be needed to put down Trump, like it was with Corbyn.
If so, hopefully Jan 6 was the equivalent of Salisbury, where the truth of their man became clear to even lots of their own parties supporters.
Be interesting to see how the massive polyhalite mine near Whitby operates when it opens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodsmith_Mine
I have a fine collection of tweed jackets and a tweed suit, but the only kilts I have are my dad's old moth-eaten ones, never worn. I still know which looks more twattish though.
Not real ones, anyway.
“In a post [sent out by Trump & written by his ally], the lawyer Mike Davis, a large photo of Judge Chutkan accompanied text that falsely claimed she had ‘openly admitted she’s running election interference against Trump.’” That triggered the murder threat
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1692114464638685245
I know a couple - in manner, she is posh for Manchester (listens to radio 4, trills rather than laughs, quite RP, talks about the arts), he is not (Lancashire accent, talks about football) - and then you find out a bit about their respective backgrounds; her father ran a garage, and while he passed his 11+ he couldn't go because his parents couldn't afford the shoes; while his father went to one of the more famous public schools in London, rebelled against his parents wealth, and made his life in a not-particularly-affluent suburb of Rochdale.
EDIT: that they had to resort to conscription to the mines, in WWII, is indicative.
What a c
The 28in waist long since rendered it unwearable, sadly.
Drawing a response doesn't mean your views are not allowed, I've quite often received a very vituperative response for my views on Brexit, or that (after you helped convince me) it'd be better to have had no lockdown even if it means more people would have died - but that doesn't mean such views aren't allowed, it just means others vehemently disagree.
30 years ago it was very much reversed with South Shields way nicer than Whitley Bay.
There does seem to be a certain size of town say where the population is roughly 100-200,000 that has suffered greatly over the past 15 years with the shops that used to target that size of market completely disappearing...
South Shields, Gateshead, even Sunderland all have big problems with their high streets. Whitley Bay being slightly smaller has been able to reinvent its self..
Further south Stockton, Middlesbrough have similar issues. Yet Darlington seems to have hung on better than all the above. That will probably change next year though when Scotch Corner Designer Outlet opens..
There is most definitely a feeling that anything that isn't "just murder Russia", as somehow being on the side of Russia.
I pointed out yesterday that these same people were saying the war would be over quickly a year ago and yet we're still here.
The reality is that Russia have nukes. And this war will go on for years with lots of people dead.
There's a pattern of responding to people, that's how conversations work online.
We disagree about
everythingBrexit, say. But when we discuss it we don't think in believing whatever we believe about widget standards that there is an orthodoxy which one of us is violating. Sure it all gets heated and why not - it's what makes PB PB.But with the Ukrainian war it is different. Many on PB have created an orthodoxy and the response to any post which in any way is perceived to contravene this has a unique character.
Many absolutely do regarding lockdown.
Suggest that death is a natural part of life and that lockdown was a mistake, even though it means more people would have died had we not locked down, and people respond like I'm literally suggesting we go around murdering people.
With a champagne bar on the upper floors.
And it's not unique at all - Scot Nats get a similar pile on (often much less rational).
Refugees from Afghanistan - bad.
Is not the opinion of most people but is a few.
Recently when discussing traffic some in the anti-car brigade have taken to trying to use the fact road traffic accidents happen as a killer argument and basically taken a zero covid/zero accident attitude, suggesting that being OK with the fact life has risk is wanting to "kill toddlers".
Drawing a strong response isn't unique to Ukraine. Its simply what happens when you argue on the internet.
I personally would like them to lose with as few casualties as possible on both sides but I do not believe a defeat will change the world at all.
And the idea they'll actually just go back to the situation prior to 2014 - which I think is what you advocate? - seems fantasy.
The ones saying the war would be over quickly were those saying that Russia would be in Kyiv in days so no reason to support Ukraine.
Those of us in favour of Ukraine's self-defence are saying to support Ukraine however long the war takes, not for days or weeks or months. If it takes years, we should support them for years.
And I don't know a single person saying "just murder Russia". Who's seriously suggesting Moscow should be invaded? As opposed to jokes about the Ukraine/Republic of China border.
Wanting Ukraine free and secure, wanting Crimea and other occupied territory liberated != murdering Russia.
People identify your views on traffic/car usage as "out there" but acknowledge that it is a legitimate point of view, albeit one they disagree (strongly) with.
On Ukraine (and, previously, on lockdown) posters sought to deligitimise any view which contravened the orthodoxy of the time. Then it was lockdowns, now it is Ukraine.
I do think Ukraine will be free if they lose.
I support Ukraine being free. All of Ukraine being free.
Why don't you think it can happen?
It may be very bloody, but if its bloody and Ukrainians are prepared to sacrifice that blood to secure their own liberty, then its a fight worth having.
I do think there's some conflation of what people think Ukraine should do and how much those outside of Ukraine should support what that country is doing.
FWIW I believe Ukraine has choices, all of them bad. I am not convinced their current choice of energetically facing down Russian aggression is the worst of those choices. I can explain my reasons why I think it might be the least worst choice for them. It is in any case the choice they have made.
I don't see any reason why we wouldn't support Ukraine in fighting on, if that's what they choose to do.
They’ve got to be jumping to warrant an award.
And I don't know what you mean by 'murdering' Russia.
The last sentence is a good example of what not to say to federal agents investigating threats you’ve made.
If we have to give something to the imperialists in Moscow, what about the revanchists you will create in Ukraine?
The maths is fairly obvious - they will dig the plutonium out of the cooling ponds around the reactors and build a bomb. Given the US tested a device with more than 20% 240, so called civil plutonium.. isn’t.
Why do you think the Russians are demanding the right to seize the power stations. And why do you think the US is reluctant to have over heavy, long ranged missiles?
Which brings us onto our response. You and I have crossed swords before on this because you have said (IIRC) words to the effect of we should do anything it takes to bring about a Ukrainian victory. I demurred because transparently obviously we are not doing that now and have no intention of doing it in future.
We have even discussed the use of nuclear weapons which you have advocated (again IIRC, and lead us to a somewhat absurd discussion about (me inferring that) you wanted to sacrifice your children to liberate Ukraine). I do not want a nuclear holocaust in order to regain Crimea for Ukraine - whatever that would mean after a nuclear holocaust.
But the point is that when (not shut down) posters opine on the war, unless they tow the PB party line and adhere to the orthodoxy the response is weirdly vituperative.
Mr. Booth, my understanding is the land approach is pretty difficult to Crimea. Against that, blowing the dam meant Russia destroyed the water channel that was responsible for 85% of Crimea's water. That's exactly indicative of long term planning. But they're never going to let Sevastopol[sp] go if they can help it.
In order to achieve a pre-2014 settlement, it seems to me that Russia will have to be completely annihilated, which in practice either means having Putin deposed and installing a pro-western leader (not going to happen), or bombing them to death, with or without nukes.
I just do not see a situation within the current conflict that will present a 2014-era situation without some kind of catastrophe on either side, which probably means the US getting involved for some reason. They won't want to do that so it will be a stalemate.
I believe this war will resolve nothing and will achieve nothing, it will not return to pre-2014 though, I am fairly confident of that - but as we know my predictions have never been particular good
Onetime Florida Republican.
The Hard-Tweeting Defense Lawyer GOP Candidates Have Learned to Fear
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/17/ron-filipkowski-desantis-trump-00110950
In fact cars are ridiculously dangerous, expensive and resource-intensive things, and there is no way we can continue to afford them; especially if, as you presumably want, the developing world's living standards rise to match ours. It is magical thinking to believe that converting them from horrid dirty ICE to magic techie shiny electric waves away these fundamental problems. They are on the way out. This may be incredible to you, but have a read of When William Came by Saki, 1913. It's a Man In The High Castle novel about England after German conquest, and one of the most appalling things Saki can imagine is that "No weapons other than guns for specified sporting purposes, duly declared and registered and open to inspection when required, could be owned, purchased, or carried." What happened next?
Well done Rishi, truly superb economic management.
I just do not see how we go back to a pre-2014 situation at the moment, Putin isn't going to do it and any replacement will surely be even more hardline.
He was a perfectly nice and pleasant chap and had an interesting perspective. Certain users just use to shout and dump on him at every occasion.
I'd like him to come back, along with @StuartDickson who I disagreed with on basically everything but again had an interesting perspective.
Ukraine has already shown it can liberate land. It's done so for Kharkiv and Kherson, so why not Melitipol or Sevastopol?
Russia won't want Moscow nuked for Sevastopol any more than America would have wanted W DC or New York nuked for Kabul. So nukes aren't relevant to the conversation.
What matters is how the fight progresses on the battlefield. If they can liberate Kherson, they can possibly liberate Sevastopol, we just need to give them whatever support they need for as long as they want to fight for their own freedom.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/308476950
Gillian Keegan on this year’s A Level results 👇
I totally agree - so it is bemusing that we put so much weight on them, isn't it Gill?
I do not understand why this isn't more widely discussed.
@Anabobazina this is the sort of thing I was referring to.
There must be some limit, so what is it?
Putin effectively rules Russia + a bit of Ukraine + a bit of Georgia. He has a lot to lose, notably being the kleptocratic ruler of Russia with a luxury lifestyle. If holding on to bits of Ukraine jeopardises that, I can see him giving up on Ukraine.
How widely discussed do you want this to be? It’s mentioned a few times every week on PB. I’ve seen articles on it in various major periodicals and newspapers.
Losing Ukraine is not losing Russia.
Losing Crimea is not losing Moscow.
So let's get back to the real world. It's simply a conventional war, and a conventional war can be won by either side. Russia has seized land in this war, and Ukraine has liberated seized land (including some land seized since in 2014) so both are clearly possible.
You said above we must do "whatever it takes".
Who said that?
Putin has Moscow and the rest of Russia left to lose. If the choice is lose Crimea, or lose Crimea and Moscow, then Putin will lose Crimea. He is not going to seek to lose Moscow.
Putin has Russia and Moscow left to lose. Which is why he's not using nukes. It's why nukes have never been used by a losing side in a conventional war.