And deliberately set things up so the final evacuation which would inevitably be chaotic would only happen after the election.
How can Trump control what Biden's team do 18 months after the inauguration? They had time to organise the withdrawal any way they preferred. Cutting and running was a good idea, the fact that it was a lethal fiasco was on the incumbents.
May 2021 (the date Trump’s withdrawal deal took effect) was four months after the inauguration. The withdrawal as the Taliban took Kabul was August - seven months.
Edit - if you check the dates, you will also find significant troop transfers that had not been planned (amounting to around 75% of US forces) happened in November and December 2020.
Incidentally, the only reason I would disagree that withdrawing was the right idea is because I’ve never understood why some people thought the invasion would be a good idea in the first place.
Biden wanted to celebrate the withdrawal on September 11th 2021, and was pushing everything towards that deadline.
That’s why it ended up being such a mess.
America had failed to win the war and peace after 20 years in the country, that's why it ended up being such a mess.
Withdrawals after being defeated are rarely pleasant.
Still, America's mess in Afghanistan is nothing like the mess that Putin has gotten Russia into in Ukraine - that's a whole another level.
The Ukranians are still advancing into Russia, it’s totally nuts.
The Russians are digging trenches around the railways at Lvov, but the Ukranians now have main battle tanks advancing their positions which don’t care much about trenches.
10 days now, and they’ve been totally unable to throw much more than untrained conscripts at the situation, most of which are now PoWs, because we all would be when confronted with an actual enemy army.
I had first assumed that this was some sort of special forces raid that would go and get something close to the border and then extract themselves, but it’s clearly as much of an invasion as we saw in Feb ‘22, just better organised and with reinforcements coming from behind. Oh, and without the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Meanwhile, there’s now 200,000 evacuees in the wider region, that the Russians have to put somewhere.
One of the Russian cope strategies online was to say: "We're slowly advancing in the east of Ukraine whilst our great armoured fist, complete with T-14s and SU-57s, is being prepared for the knockout blow on Kyiv / Kharkiv / Odessa!!!!"
In other words, that Russia had a large force ready to go into Ukraine once they had denuded Ukraine enough.
I think it's now clear that that was utter copium b/s. The Ukrainians may be being denuded, but the Russians have also been. They don't seem to have a great deal spare.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Ukrainians have captured an area about the size of Berkshire. At the same time, they have lost an area the size of England and Wales combined and they seem to be falling back in the south.
Yes, highly embarrassing for Putin. Makes him look stupid. But it comes with significant risks for Ukraine and it's not wholly clear yet what they expect to get from it, never mind will get.
It may put an end to the idea of a stalemated war, Korea Mark 2. But given Russia's size and resources that may not be to Ukraine's advantage.
Ukraine is doing what it can do, not what it wants to do, with its invasion of Kursk. If they hoped to draw Russian troops from Donbas that aim has failed so far. Russia is prioritising its continuing advance in Ukraine over preventing the loss of its own territory in Kursk.
The operation has been a morale booster for Ukraine. This is valuable but as you point out there's a potentially large cost.
Its too early to say it has failed so far, there are already reports of troops going from Donbas to Kursk, but more importantly there's only a finite amount of troops in Donbas and the rate at which Russia is losing them means they need to be continually refreshed.
Now Russia has a major headache, does it send new reinforcements to Kursk or to Donbas. If reinforcements go to Kursk instead of Donbas, then even if no troops leave Donbas, that's still weakening Russia in Donbas.
Plus its "advance" in Donbas is minute and costly. Slowly pulling back while your enemy loses a lot of troops and munitions in a costly grind can be a good strategy.
Sure. My point is a limited one. If the purpose of this invasion was to divert Russian resources to Kursk and away from Donbas, the upshot for now is Ukrainian resources have been diverted and the Russian ones haven't.
Surely none of us can know what level of resource has or has not been diverted? No-one outside the Russian military command structure is going to know that.
We can be confident that Ukraine has put a lot more of its scarce resource into Kursk than Russia has so far. Equally it has not so far slowed down the Russian advance towards capturing the strategically much more important town of Pokrovsk..
I'm not trying to be an armchair general here. The Kursk operation may be the best of Ukraine's limited choices. I'm suggesting it doesn't necessarily show the overall situation turning to Ukraine's advantage. Unfortunately. Like most people on here I believe this is a war Ukraine must win.
Some nice O'Neill/High frontier inspired slides about 15 minutes in.
Bezos has been fascinated by space all his life, going back to his time at school. His vision is also more consistent and (dare I say...) sensible than Musk's, which includes plenty of underpants-style uncertainty.
Both O'Neil'ing and and Mars colonisation need lots of steps beyond "Lots of cheap lift"
Getting to cheap heavy lift has taken decades. You could say that the seeds were sown in the 1990s.
Which one requires more steps is actually an interesting question.
We are probably a decade or so from serious structures somewhere between here and the Moon.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
Being a little ray of sunshine I tend to think politicians are never quite as horrible/dishonest/incompetent as their opponents portray them. Ross may be the exception.
Yeah, my spidey-sense is tingling about this study. What it actually shows is if you cross out the worst results and pretend they didn't happen, we're halfway to the broad, sunlit uplands.
The idea that replacing the GPs who treated these now-dead patients would massively improve outcomes is an assumption for which I'd want to see some evidence.
I've probably met more GP's than the average Pb-er has, and my experience is that, like any other occupation, they vary through the usual range; bad > average > good > excellent. Why a few of them went into GP-ing was beyond my understanding!
Some nice O'Neill/High frontier inspired slides about 15 minutes in.
Bezos has been fascinated by space all his life, going back to his time at school. His vision is also more consistent and (dare I say...) sensible than Musk's, which includes plenty of underpants-style uncertainty.
Both O'Neil'ing and and Mars colonisation need lots of steps beyond "Lots of cheap lift"
Getting to cheap heavy lift has taken decades. You could say that the seeds were sown in the 1990s.
Which one requires more steps is actually an interesting question.
We are probably a decade or so from serious structures somewhere between here and the Moon.
But Bezos isn't directly after O'Neil'ing.
He wants to create a basic infrastructure to allow industrialisation of space. That's a heck of a lot more achievable, and makes much more sense, than Musk's plans for a million people on Mars.
Bezos has described it something like this: when I set up Amazon, there was lots of infrastructure that allowed the company to work; like the Internet, the postal service, and delivery companies. I want to create the infrastructure to enable people to open new endeavours in space, eventually meaning that most heavy industry will leave the Earth, protecting it.
Note he does not say that he wants to create the new industries; just the infrastructure to enable them.
I have some problems with his plans, but they make a heck of a lot more sense than !!!!Mars!!!!
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
Has all housebuilding stopped? I must have missed that.
Many people say there is a big tantrum going on in the Trump campaign. Angry outbursts about why nobody understands Hannibal Lecter, Dead birds and Cheerios references. Many people . . . The best minds.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
Has all housebuilding stopped? I must have missed that.
Of course it hasnt, but you are talking about a ramp up to hit the governments target. And so far they appear to have done little to secure land, plan towns, ramp up the supply chain. So it's all back loaded.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
Some nice O'Neill/High frontier inspired slides about 15 minutes in.
Bezos has been fascinated by space all his life, going back to his time at school. His vision is also more consistent and (dare I say...) sensible than Musk's, which includes plenty of underpants-style uncertainty.
Both O'Neil'ing and and Mars colonisation need lots of steps beyond "Lots of cheap lift"
Getting to cheap heavy lift has taken decades. You could say that the seeds were sown in the 1990s.
Which one requires more steps is actually an interesting question.
We are probably a decade or so from serious structures somewhere between here and the Moon.
But Bezos isn't directly after O'Neil'ing.
He wants to create a basic infrastructure to allow industrialisation of space. That's a heck of a lot more achievable, and makes much more sense, than Musk's plans for a million people on Mars.
Bezos has described it something like this: when I set up Amazon, there was lots of infrastructure that allowed the company to work; like the Internet, the postal service, and delivery companies. I want to create the infrastructure to enable people to open new endeavours in space, eventually meaning that most heavy industry will leave the Earth, protecting it.
Note he does not say that he wants to create the new industries; just the infrastructure to enable them.
I have some problems with his plans, but they make a heck of a lot more sense than !!!!Mars!!!!
That's O'Neil'ing - read up on what O'Neil proposed. The Rama scale colonies were way down the list. But people love the epic proportions, so they concentrate on that.
Define "basic infrastructure" - some could ague that cheap heavy lift is what is needed.
Some would say utilisation of cheap heavy list - see Starlink/Kuiper, which will pay for and get the launch industry up to 100s of tons per day.
What's beyond that is not knowable at this point. Mega constellations in LEO weren't on anyone's realistic radar, not long ago. Iridium and the rest had put even small LEO constellations in the failure category....
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
And deliberately set things up so the final evacuation which would inevitably be chaotic would only happen after the election.
How can Trump control what Biden's team do 18 months after the inauguration? They had time to organise the withdrawal any way they preferred. Cutting and running was a good idea, the fact that it was a lethal fiasco was on the incumbents.
May 2021 (the date Trump’s withdrawal deal took effect) was four months after the inauguration. The withdrawal as the Taliban took Kabul was August - seven months.
Edit - if you check the dates, you will also find significant troop transfers that had not been planned (amounting to around 75% of US forces) happened in November and December 2020.
Incidentally, the only reason I would disagree that withdrawing was the right idea is because I’ve never understood why some people thought the invasion would be a good idea in the first place.
Biden wanted to celebrate the withdrawal on September 11th 2021, and was pushing everything towards that deadline.
That’s why it ended up being such a mess.
America had failed to win the war and peace after 20 years in the country, that's why it ended up being such a mess.
Withdrawals after being defeated are rarely pleasant.
Still, America's mess in Afghanistan is nothing like the mess that Putin has gotten Russia into in Ukraine - that's a whole another level.
The Ukranians are still advancing into Russia, it’s totally nuts.
The Russians are digging trenches around the railways at Lvov, but the Ukranians now have main battle tanks advancing their positions which don’t care much about trenches.
10 days now, and they’ve been totally unable to throw much more than untrained conscripts at the situation, most of which are now PoWs, because we all would be when confronted with an actual enemy army.
I had first assumed that this was some sort of special forces raid that would go and get something close to the border and then extract themselves, but it’s clearly as much of an invasion as we saw in Feb ‘22, just better organised and with reinforcements coming from behind. Oh, and without the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Meanwhile, there’s now 200,000 evacuees in the wider region, that the Russians have to put somewhere.
One of the Russian cope strategies online was to say: "We're slowly advancing in the east of Ukraine whilst our great armoured fist, complete with T-14s and SU-57s, is being prepared for the knockout blow on Kyiv / Kharkiv / Odessa!!!!"
In other words, that Russia had a large force ready to go into Ukraine once they had denuded Ukraine enough.
I think it's now clear that that was utter copium b/s. The Ukrainians may be being denuded, but the Russians have also been. They don't seem to have a great deal spare.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Ukrainians have captured an area about the size of Berkshire. At the same time, they have lost an area the size of England and Wales combined and they seem to be falling back in the south.
Yes, highly embarrassing for Putin. Makes him look stupid. But it comes with significant risks for Ukraine and it's not wholly clear yet what they expect to get from it, never mind will get.
It may put an end to the idea of a stalemated war, Korea Mark 2. But given Russia's size and resources that may not be to Ukraine's advantage.
Ukraine is doing what it can do, not what it wants to do, with its invasion of Kursk. If they hoped to draw Russian troops from Donbas that aim has failed so far. Russia is prioritising its continuing advance in Ukraine over preventing the loss of its own territory in Kursk.
The operation has been a morale booster for Ukraine. This is valuable but as you point out there's a potentially large cost.
Its too early to say it has failed so far, there are already reports of troops going from Donbas to Kursk, but more importantly there's only a finite amount of troops in Donbas and the rate at which Russia is losing them means they need to be continually refreshed.
Now Russia has a major headache, does it send new reinforcements to Kursk or to Donbas. If reinforcements go to Kursk instead of Donbas, then even if no troops leave Donbas, that's still weakening Russia in Donbas.
Plus its "advance" in Donbas is minute and costly. Slowly pulling back while your enemy loses a lot of troops and munitions in a costly grind can be a good strategy.
Sure. My point is a limited one. If the purpose of this invasion was to divert Russian resources to Kursk and away from Donbas, the upshot for now is Ukrainian resources have been diverted and the Russian ones haven't.
Surely none of us can know what level of resource has or has not been diverted? No-one outside the Russian military command structure is going to know that.
We can be confident that Ukraine has put a lot more of its scarce resource into Kursk than Russia has so far. Equally it has not so far slowed down the Russian advance towards capturing the strategically much more important town of Pokrovsk..
I'm not trying to be an armchair general here. The Kursk operation may be the best of Ukraine's limited choices. I'm suggesting it doesn't necessarily show the overall situation turning to Ukraine's advantage. Unfortunately. Like most people on here I believe this is a war Ukraine must win.
The Jolly Boys' outing to Kursk is very much to Ukraine's advantage because it resets the narrative in the West. Zelensky's prime objective has always been to get NATO fighting and ideally dying in Ukraine - remember the NFZ bullshit. If he can't do that then the next best thing is to keep them interested and keep the money and weapons coming.
Over the past 18 months Ukraine has been losing one very similar muddy bloodbath after another. This was getting more tedious than waiting for Paul to die on Coronation Street. Now Kursk has given them and their simple minded Western boosters a sugar rush of good news.
Some nice O'Neill/High frontier inspired slides about 15 minutes in.
Bezos has been fascinated by space all his life, going back to his time at school. His vision is also more consistent and (dare I say...) sensible than Musk's, which includes plenty of underpants-style uncertainty.
Both O'Neil'ing and and Mars colonisation need lots of steps beyond "Lots of cheap lift"
Getting to cheap heavy lift has taken decades. You could say that the seeds were sown in the 1990s.
Which one requires more steps is actually an interesting question.
We are probably a decade or so from serious structures somewhere between here and the Moon.
But Bezos isn't directly after O'Neil'ing.
He wants to create a basic infrastructure to allow industrialisation of space. That's a heck of a lot more achievable, and makes much more sense, than Musk's plans for a million people on Mars.
Bezos has described it something like this: when I set up Amazon, there was lots of infrastructure that allowed the company to work; like the Internet, the postal service, and delivery companies. I want to create the infrastructure to enable people to open new endeavours in space, eventually meaning that most heavy industry will leave the Earth, protecting it.
Note he does not say that he wants to create the new industries; just the infrastructure to enable them.
I have some problems with his plans, but they make a heck of a lot more sense than !!!!Mars!!!!
That's O'Neil'ing - read up on what O'Neil proposed. The Rama scale colonies were way down the list. But people love the epic proportions, so they concentrate on that.
Define "basic infrastructure" - some could ague that cheap heavy lift is what is needed.
Some would say utilisation of cheap heavy list - see Starlink/Kuiper, which will pay for and get the launch industry up to 100s of tons per day.
What's beyond that is not knowable at this point. Mega constellations in LEO weren't on anyone's realistic radar, not long ago. Iridium and the rest had put even small LEO constellations in the failure category....
Yeah, but as you say, it's not what people think of as O'Neilling - the vast, green cylinders in orbit.
Cheap heavy lift is the first thing that is needed (and also safe return to Earth...). But there is potentially much more to it than that; IMV the next stage is trying to utilise the Moon for resources, especially water if feasible (and I have doubts...). Then there are the asteroids.
And deliberately set things up so the final evacuation which would inevitably be chaotic would only happen after the election.
How can Trump control what Biden's team do 18 months after the inauguration? They had time to organise the withdrawal any way they preferred. Cutting and running was a good idea, the fact that it was a lethal fiasco was on the incumbents.
May 2021 (the date Trump’s withdrawal deal took effect) was four months after the inauguration. The withdrawal as the Taliban took Kabul was August - seven months.
Edit - if you check the dates, you will also find significant troop transfers that had not been planned (amounting to around 75% of US forces) happened in November and December 2020.
Incidentally, the only reason I would disagree that withdrawing was the right idea is because I’ve never understood why some people thought the invasion would be a good idea in the first place.
Biden wanted to celebrate the withdrawal on September 11th 2021, and was pushing everything towards that deadline.
That’s why it ended up being such a mess.
America had failed to win the war and peace after 20 years in the country, that's why it ended up being such a mess.
Withdrawals after being defeated are rarely pleasant.
Still, America's mess in Afghanistan is nothing like the mess that Putin has gotten Russia into in Ukraine - that's a whole another level.
The Ukranians are still advancing into Russia, it’s totally nuts.
The Russians are digging trenches around the railways at Lvov, but the Ukranians now have main battle tanks advancing their positions which don’t care much about trenches.
10 days now, and they’ve been totally unable to throw much more than untrained conscripts at the situation, most of which are now PoWs, because we all would be when confronted with an actual enemy army.
I had first assumed that this was some sort of special forces raid that would go and get something close to the border and then extract themselves, but it’s clearly as much of an invasion as we saw in Feb ‘22, just better organised and with reinforcements coming from behind. Oh, and without the indiscriminate killing of civilians. Meanwhile, there’s now 200,000 evacuees in the wider region, that the Russians have to put somewhere.
One of the Russian cope strategies online was to say: "We're slowly advancing in the east of Ukraine whilst our great armoured fist, complete with T-14s and SU-57s, is being prepared for the knockout blow on Kyiv / Kharkiv / Odessa!!!!"
In other words, that Russia had a large force ready to go into Ukraine once they had denuded Ukraine enough.
I think it's now clear that that was utter copium b/s. The Ukrainians may be being denuded, but the Russians have also been. They don't seem to have a great deal spare.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Ukrainians have captured an area about the size of Berkshire. At the same time, they have lost an area the size of England and Wales combined and they seem to be falling back in the south.
Yes, highly embarrassing for Putin. Makes him look stupid. But it comes with significant risks for Ukraine and it's not wholly clear yet what they expect to get from it, never mind will get.
It may put an end to the idea of a stalemated war, Korea Mark 2. But given Russia's size and resources that may not be to Ukraine's advantage.
Ukraine is doing what it can do, not what it wants to do, with its invasion of Kursk. If they hoped to draw Russian troops from Donbas that aim has failed so far. Russia is prioritising its continuing advance in Ukraine over preventing the loss of its own territory in Kursk.
The operation has been a morale booster for Ukraine. This is valuable but as you point out there's a potentially large cost.
Its too early to say it has failed so far, there are already reports of troops going from Donbas to Kursk, but more importantly there's only a finite amount of troops in Donbas and the rate at which Russia is losing them means they need to be continually refreshed.
Now Russia has a major headache, does it send new reinforcements to Kursk or to Donbas. If reinforcements go to Kursk instead of Donbas, then even if no troops leave Donbas, that's still weakening Russia in Donbas.
Plus its "advance" in Donbas is minute and costly. Slowly pulling back while your enemy loses a lot of troops and munitions in a costly grind can be a good strategy.
Sure. My point is a limited one. If the purpose of this invasion was to divert Russian resources to Kursk and away from Donbas, the upshot for now is Ukrainian resources have been diverted and the Russian ones haven't.
Surely none of us can know what level of resource has or has not been diverted? No-one outside the Russian military command structure is going to know that.
We can be confident that Ukraine has put a lot more of its scarce resource into Kursk than Russia has so far. Equally it has not so far slowed down the Russian advance towards capturing the strategically much more important town of Pokrovsk..
I'm not trying to be an armchair general here. The Kursk operation may be the best of Ukraine's limited choices. I'm suggesting it doesn't necessarily show the overall situation turning to Ukraine's advantage. Unfortunately. Like most people on here I believe this is a war Ukraine must win.
The Jolly Boys' outing to Kursk is very much to Ukraine's advantage because it resets the narrative in the West. Zelensky's prime objective has always been to get NATO fighting and ideally dying in Ukraine - remember the NFZ bullshit. If he can't do that then the next best thing is to keep them interested and keep the money and weapons coming.
Over the past 18 months Ukraine has been losing one very similar muddy bloodbath after another. This was getting more tedious than waiting for Paul to die on Coronation Street. Now Kursk has given them and their simple minded Western boosters a sugar rush of good news.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
Kristof is a leftist, but an honest one, unlike most American journalists. And it shows something that he is an "opinion" jounalist, not a reporter, or an editor. The Times publishes a few moderate opinion journalists, just to show that they aren't totally close minded.
But what happened recently with Bari Weiss shows the limits to that honesty.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
I ain't that old.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
I ain't that old.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
Ah well, take it from one who was beginning to get 'aware' then. The 1945 Labour Government got on with things.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
I ain't that old.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
Ah well, take it from one who was beginning to get 'aware' then. The 1945 Labour Government got on with things.
It was simply a function of how things were, back then.
The idea of spending 1/4 Billion on plans for the Dartford Crossing would have been seen as insane, back then.
Yes, Starmer could bring forward primary legislation overriding the whole system. Then the Greens and the Lib Dems will go full NIMBY, ready for the local elections. And the entire Enquiry Industrial Complex would fire up *all* the legal challenges, to the concept of doing away with spending billions on report on planning things.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
Indeed. The one thing I learnt from my so far long career: ideas are two a penny; it's what you do with them that matters.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
Indeed. The one thing I learnt from my so far long career: ideas are two a penny; it's what you do with them that matters.
Another example of leftist bias: The Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in 1994. After that, federal economic policy was set more by compromises between Republicans led by Dole and Gingrich, and Clinton. If you are going to give Clinton credit for a good economy, you should give Dole and Gingrich credit, too.
(For the record: People often believe that presidents "manage" the economy. I think that they can't, having far less power than often believed -- and that they shouldn't try.
What a president can do is pursue policies that help the economy, in the long run. They can, for example, propose building infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient. Even Obama, as incompetent as he is, saw an infrastructure bill passed. (I assume large amounts of the money was wasted.)
Presidents should act like intelligent farmers, providing good conditions for growth, but recognizing that, because of "events", things can go better or worse than they hoped.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
Indeed. The one thing I learnt from my so far long career: ideas are two a penny; it's what you do with them that matters.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
I ain't that old.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
Ah well, take it from one who was beginning to get 'aware' then. The 1945 Labour Government got on with things.
It was simply a function of how things were, back then.
The idea of spending 1/4 Billion on plans for the Dartford Crossing would have been seen as insane, back then.
Yes, Starmer could bring forward primary legislation overriding the whole system. Then the Greens and the Lib Dems will go full NIMBY, ready for the local elections. And the entire Enquiry Industrial Complex would fire up *all* the legal challenges, to the concept of doing away with spending billions on report on planning things.
I don't think the courts would like to see the end of judicial reviewability for such decisions. Plenty of makework for legal eagles there
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Alan is desperate to declare failure, almost before they've started. I remain cautiously optimistic - not least as the policy I predicted pre-election, and which he said wouldn't happen, seems to be happening.
3% of available time gone and not a brick laid. Indeed not even a plan.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
I suspect that, like most of us, Starmer didn't expect Sunak to call the election when he did. Hitting the ground running is therefore more difficult, since plans hadn't been completed. Close to completion, maybe, but. And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
The idea that new towns won't take years of planning - nothing of that scale has taken less than years of planning, in my lifetime....
Harlow was designated in 1947 and by the mid fifties was up and running.
I ain't that old.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
Ah well, take it from one who was beginning to get 'aware' then. The 1945 Labour Government got on with things.
It was simply a function of how things were, back then.
The idea of spending 1/4 Billion on plans for the Dartford Crossing would have been seen as insane, back then.
Yes, Starmer could bring forward primary legislation overriding the whole system. Then the Greens and the Lib Dems will go full NIMBY, ready for the local elections. And the entire Enquiry Industrial Complex would fire up *all* the legal challenges, to the concept of doing away with spending billions on report on planning things.
The government could get on and do it - wipe out the report writing/consultant/public Inquiry industry. It can just be done in one swoop, pass an act of parliament that grants itself the power to grant planning permission for whatever it wants to do, delegating matters accordingly. Thus reinventing what it did in 1948, and which led to where we are now, 75 years later.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
My main beef with Apple is they groom their customers to accept living in a walled garden.
I have a copy of BYTE from the mid-1980s with long interviews with the original protagonists !
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
They would be doing very well if they held house building at current levels. They won't
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken on an intern for the summer in a tech role.
Interns often have issues with their (usually first) interactions with an office-based work environment, but one lass is having more than usual, as she has zero idea how to drive a Windows-style WIMP GUI. It looks as though she has only ever used phones and tablets.
I wonder how common an issues this is?
Perhaps she's a Mac Victim ?
(Good morning everyone.)
Mac introduced a WIMP interface before Microsoft.
You mean the one they copied from xerox parc and then claimed they invented
They bought the basic ideas from Xerox (who didn't seem to know what to do with them) and developed them into a commercial product.
They 'bought' implies they did a deal and paid for the ideas. Did they?
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
Last year 190k was achieved (without checking the detail).
So I think the options to evaluate for the first 5 years will be:
750k. 1m. 1.25m. 1.5m.
With a profile required for 1.5m total at steady growth with 2024 same as 2023 with a profile something like:
180-220k 225-275k 270k-330k 315k-385k 360k-440k
1.5m is the average, and those are +/-10%. That's the line to watch. Less than 200k in year one will be a telltale, since that is where they are already.
Since 1m should be in the bag already, I'd regard less than 1.25m in 5 years as clear failure. More than 1.25m may be defensible.
There's also a big question as to whether it means E, EW or including SEWNI.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
They would be doing very well if they held house building at current levels. They won't
They'd love to be judged that way but I think people are expecting a bit more. This is the first brand new Labour government for 27 years. There might not be excitement but there is a certain guarded optimism.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
Last year 190k was achieved (without checking the detail).
So I think the options to evaluate for the first 5 years will be:
750k. 1m. 1.25m. 1.5m.
With a profile required for 1.5m total at steady growth with 2024 same as 2023 with a profile something like:
180-220k 225-275k 270k-330k 315k-385k 360k-440k
1.5m is the average, and those are +/-10%. That's the line to watch. Less than 200k in year one will be a telltale, since that is where they are already.
Since 1m should be in the bag already, I'd regard less than 1.25m in 5 years as clear failure. More than 1.25m may be defensible.
There's also a big question as to whether it means E, EW or including SEWNI.
Right. Let's bookmark this and revisit in August 2026. I'll inform AlanBrooke so he doesn't miss the engagement.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
They would be doing very well if they held house building at current levels. They won't
They'd love to be judged that way but I think people are expecting a bit more. This is the first brand new Labour government for 27 years. There might not be excitement but there is a certain guarded optimism.
Frankly, if a Labour government can't improve on the housebuilding record of a Conservative government in hock to Nimby MPs, they (and we) might as well all give up and go home.
Except people won't be able to go home, due to a lack of homes.
The article doesn't say that. It just has a Think Tank opining that New Towns aren't a Silver Bullet.
Lol you just know youre being lined up for the 180 degree turn but are living in the hope they might actually stick to a commitment.
Starmer is making BoJo look like a paragon of truth
UK govts never meet housing targets (or any targets for that matter) so 'success' is getting in the ballpark. If they don't you'll be able to say "told you so"' not only with glee but with some credence. But not yet. Let's see how it's looking (on this and in general) a year to 18 months from now. Deal?
In reality 18 months wont tell us much. All project timings tend to move to later dates especially in construction as the plans start on an optinistic basis. Labour have simply made themselves hostages to fortune by making claims they will struggle to deliver.
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
I've no problem believing there's an element of 'ra ra' (although it won't be in the BoJo league) in what Labour have said on building houses. But what I mean is, 18 months from now (or let's say two years if that's still too soon) it will have become clear whether they are tracking for success on their full parliament target (success being target not met but not a million miles away) or failure (getting nowhere near). We'll have a better idea by then which of those outcomes we're looking at, or possibly it will be something in the middle. As of now, we really can't say.
Last year 190k was achieved (without checking the detail).
So I think the options to evaluate for the first 5 years will be:
750k. 1m. 1.25m. 1.5m.
With a profile required for 1.5m total at steady growth with 2024 same as 2023 with a profile something like:
180-220k 225-275k 270k-330k 315k-385k 360k-440k
1.5m is the average, and those are +/-10%. That's the line to watch. Less than 200k in year one will be a tell tale, since that is where they are already.
Since 1m should be in the bag already, I'd regard less than 1.25m in 5 years as clear failure. More than 1.25m may be defensible.
There's also a big question as to whether it means E, EW or including SEWNI.
Right. Let's bookmark this and revisit in August 2026. I'll inform AlanBrooke so he doesn't miss the engagement.
I agree. But I think we'll know before that.
First concern is if they drop behind the Tories in year 1, as the Tories were last year at that stage pandering to Nimbies for butt-saving purposes by abolishing targets.
OTOH the Tory removal of housing targets would only have influence after a delay, so there could be a hidden time bomb for years 1 and 2.
New programmes (and the results of sorting out the impact of the last para) need to impact in year 2 visibly, and seriously in year 3. If they don't they are really up shit creek.
The thing that has to deliver is streamlining the local plan process and making housing targets be set and responded to seriously.
One thing in their favour is that the starting point is perhaps higher than many think, and so the Delta needed is relatively small.
And that housebuilders say they are under capacity. But they will need that and as many other initiatives to work as possible, one of which needs to be a boost to self-build.
Seattle Times - USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier docks at Naval Base Kitsap
After nearly a decade deployed in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and its thousands of sailors returned to Bremerton’s Naval Base Kitsap on Tuesday.
The base will serve as the home port for the aircraft carrier as it undergoes routine maintenance. . . .
Before arriving in Bremerton [WA], the USS Ronald Reagan had been the Navy’s only aircraft carrier with a home port in a foreign country. The ship departed from Yokosuka, Japan, on May 16, where it had been deployed since 2015.
During its tenure, the aircraft carrier participated in dozens of multilateral exercises and visited more than a dozen foreign ports, including a historic port call in Da Nang, Vietnam, last year. . . .
Friends, family and loved ones greeted more than 2,500 sailors onboard the aircraft carrier. . . .
I went on the Nimitz back around 1975 when it visited the Firth of Forth. Never forgotten that visit. Too big to come into port so we just got a boat ride out there and I had a wander around for an hour or two. All one had to do was to get a ticket from the US Consulate.
Not sure if they'd do that today. Last time I was in Plymouth a US submarine was in dock with orange buoys all around and, presumably, guarded by US people with automatic rifles and LMGs on the territory of the UK.
Back at the beginning of heryou'ver, my wife was the Nimitz’s mascot 😊
The US Navy still has bizarre (to my ears) things called Friends and Family Cruises, where they take hundreds of Friends and Family out for the day to sea. Applies to all kinds of USN ships.
Flight operations with thousands of civilians on the flight deck.
I'm sure it does wonders for public engagement, and is to do with a society far more permeated by the military - which may be where we need to be going, but our Admirals would have kittens. But the USA is not a risk-averse society.
Thank goodness for lightning protectors. I couldn't do that and wear white trousers. I can hardly bear to watch as it is.
Ooh, it's all retro Navy stuff to which I can contribute. They used to do that at HMS Ganges, which was the naval training establishment for boy seamen. My father had to do that when he was 15 or 16, around 1956. The topmost position was called the button boy, and got (IIRC) sixpence for doing it each time, as you had to hold on with your knees only. I bet it was that Health n Safety lot what stopped it.
Oh dear, Ganges was grim. I've read the memoirs and history. My father had it easy as an artificer apprentice - even with lesson 1 being how to cut and file an accurate cube one inch all round *by hand*, lesson two a hollow cylinder from a lump of metal with an *off-centre* hole in it, and so on.
Make a cube on a lathe....
Very easy if you've a four jaw chuck! (or, depending on the desired cube size, you put a biggish face mill in a 3 jaw chuck and bolt or clamp your block of metal to the tool post).
I hit a very tight 5pm deadline from a reviewer who submitted approx 200 changes in an approx ten-thousand word document and wanted them all checked and passed on for final review to oversight with only two day's notice. I was in the office at 10pm last night.
So I am resting and having a cup of tea in this unprecedented 60mins of downtime before a 6pm meeting and it all starts again. Positively decadent, me
Academic economist Alan Taylor appointed to the MPC. Impressive CV but he doesn't appear to have spent much time here since his student days at Cambridge. How well does he know the UK economy?
The impressive CV is needed for credibility with the markets. The only thing anyone will care about is how he votes though. Is he a Catherine Mann style hawk or a Swati Dinghra dove. Note he will not I think get a vote at the next MPC meeting.
That's a short termist financier/mortgage holder take. Surely the most important thing is whether he votes for rate rises/cuts at the right time. I would have thought a good understanding of the UK economy would be needed to do that, no?
Mark Carney waves hello, he did a pretty good job despite being a Canuck.
Comments
I'm not trying to be an armchair general here. The Kursk operation may be the best of Ukraine's limited choices. I'm suggesting it doesn't necessarily show the overall situation turning to Ukraine's advantage. Unfortunately. Like most people on here I believe this is a war Ukraine must win.
Getting to cheap heavy lift has taken decades. You could say that the seeds were sown in the 1990s.
Which one requires more steps is actually an interesting question.
We are probably a decade or so from serious structures somewhere between here and the Moon.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-kristin-davis-manhattan-madam-2024-election/
Thought it would appeal to you.
They are not hitting the ground running so the whole thing is back loaded., which sort of suggests theyll need to be building 400k houses a year, in the kast 3 years something this country hasnt done for half a century.
You let your polemic blind you to what you would reject in your own workplace.
what in the hell is going on here?
https://x.com/dougblandry/status/1823927592216388065
Why a few of them went into GP-ing was beyond my understanding!
He wants to create a basic infrastructure to allow industrialisation of space. That's a heck of a lot more achievable, and makes much more sense, than Musk's plans for a million people on Mars.
Bezos has described it something like this: when I set up Amazon, there was lots of infrastructure that allowed the company to work; like the Internet, the postal service, and delivery companies. I want to create the infrastructure to enable people to open new endeavours in space, eventually meaning that most heavy industry will leave the Earth, protecting it.
Note he does not say that he wants to create the new industries; just the infrastructure to enable them.
I have some problems with his plans, but they make a heck of a lot more sense than !!!!Mars!!!!
#novice
Many people say there is a big tantrum going on in the Trump campaign. Angry outbursts about why nobody understands Hannibal Lecter, Dead birds and Cheerios references. Many people . . . The best minds.
And it wasn't the best idea to have to start off with a recess.
Define "basic infrastructure" - some could ague that cheap heavy lift is what is needed.
Some would say utilisation of cheap heavy list - see Starlink/Kuiper, which will pay for and get the launch industry up to 100s of tons per day.
What's beyond that is not knowable at this point. Mega constellations in LEO weren't on anyone's realistic radar, not long ago. Iridium and the rest had put even small LEO constellations in the failure category....
{Narrator: It's not actually a flying saucer}
As I have pointed out they needed to hit the ground running to have any prospect of success, It reminds me of 2010 when the Conservatives were making noises about "spade ready projects" and subsequently discovered they were incapable of delivering much.
Over the past 18 months Ukraine has been losing one very similar muddy bloodbath after another. This was getting more tedious than waiting for Paul to die on Coronation Street. Now Kursk has given them and their simple minded Western boosters a sugar rush of good news.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Cheap heavy lift is the first thing that is needed (and also safe return to Earth...). But there is potentially much more to it than that; IMV the next stage is trying to utilise the Moon for resources, especially water if feasible (and I have doubts...). Then there are the asteroids.
Still far more feasible that !!!!Mars!!!! IMV
What daredevil viewing
But what happened recently with Bari Weiss shows the limits to that honesty.
It would take 2-3 years to write the important docs, now
The idea of spending 1/4 Billion on plans for the Dartford Crossing would have been seen as insane, back then.
Yes, Starmer could bring forward primary legislation overriding the whole system. Then the Greens and the Lib Dems will go full NIMBY, ready for the local elections. And the entire Enquiry Industrial Complex would fire up *all* the legal challenges, to the concept of doing away with spending billions on report on planning things.
(For the record: People often believe that presidents "manage" the economy. I think that they can't, having far less power than often believed -- and that they shouldn't try.
What a president can do is pursue policies that help the economy, in the long run. They can, for example, propose building infrastructure that makes the economy more efficient. Even Obama, as incompetent as he is, saw an infrastructure bill passed. (I assume large amounts of the money was wasted.)
Presidents should act like intelligent farmers, providing good conditions for growth, but recognizing that, because of "events", things can go better or worse than they hoped.
He's now challenging pretty well the entire US defence establishment.
https://www.tabletmag.com/feature/american-vulcan-palmer-luckey-anduril
Long read, but worth your time.
I have a copy of BYTE from the mid-1980s with long interviews with the original protagonists !
So I think the options to evaluate for the first 5 years will be:
750k.
1m.
1.25m.
1.5m.
With a profile required for 1.5m total at steady growth with 2024 same as 2023 with a profile something like:
180-220k
225-275k
270k-330k
315k-385k
360k-440k
1.5m is the average, and those are +/-10%. That's the line to watch. Less than 200k in year one will be a telltale, since that is where they are already.
Since 1m should be in the bag already, I'd regard less than 1.25m in 5 years as clear failure. More than 1.25m may be defensible.
There's also a big question as to whether it means E, EW or including SEWNI.
NEW THREAD
Except people won't be able to go home, due to a lack of homes.
First concern is if they drop behind the Tories in year 1, as the Tories were last year at that stage pandering to Nimbies for butt-saving purposes by abolishing targets.
OTOH the Tory removal of housing targets would only have influence after a delay, so there could be a hidden time bomb for years 1 and 2.
New programmes (and the results of sorting out the impact of the last para) need to impact in year 2 visibly, and seriously in year 3. If they don't they are really up shit creek.
The thing that has to deliver is streamlining the local plan process and making housing targets be set and responded to seriously.
One thing in their favour is that the starting point is perhaps higher than many think, and so the Delta needed is relatively small.
And that housebuilders say they are under capacity. But they will need that and as many other initiatives to work as possible, one of which needs to be a boost to self-build.
So I am resting and having a cup of tea in this unprecedented 60mins of downtime before a 6pm meeting and it all starts again. Positively decadent, me