Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
May I offer you, in addition, a little advice. Bear in mind that the amateur professional is peculiarly rapacious. This applies both to women and to people who play cards. If you must back horses, back them at a reasonable price and both ways. And, if you insist on blowing out your brains, do it in some place where you will not cause mess and inconvenience.
Gaudy Night?
The Nine Tailors is the best. My mind turns to it every New Year's Eve about 4 o'clock and that wonderful Lincolnshire snowbound fenland opening on the last day of 1929, Wimsey and Bunter adrift in a frozen waste. Sayers puts her young heart into the story as its based on the world she was brought up in, and it shows. She creates an entire rural community and landscape, and a great story.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
Trump has also called her a ‘fascist’ or ‘actual fascist’ on numerous occasions.
SOP for him, of course, to accuse opponents of being what he is himself.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
Huh? So Hitler rallying the SA for violence during the March 1933 election didn't presage the establishment of a Fascist state? Or Mussolini's March on Rome? Or the White Terror presage the Horthy regime? Or the Red Terror the Communists?
That's the most bizarre non-sequitur you've ever come up with.
If you witnessed Hitler in March 1933, would you think, "These guys think they're going to lose!"?
Trump knows he’s going to lose. He’s rallying his base for violence.
Isn't it the opposite that we are supposed to fear? That he will rally his base for violence after he wins.
How is 'rallying his base for violence' the opposite of 'rallying his base for violence'?
The author of the tweet thinks that rallying them for violence implies losing the election, which suggests that he doesn't really believe that a victorious Trump would instigate a fascist state.
If Trump wins the violence will be committed by the State, as he has clearly indicated a desire to do so both publicly in recent times, and in his previous adminstration as many of his previous appointees have told us. If Trump loses the violence will be committed by his supporters, as he eggs them on.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
I think the view, back in 2010, was that we’d avoid conflict by becoming an “Aid Superpower.”
If you think this was idiotic … well, I don’t disagree.
Goes back much further than that, though.
Alan Clark's diaries have him claiming that his Defence Review (1990?) was the only way John Major would get the funds for tax cuts.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Meanwhile, our American cousins have 51 attack subs, 18 ballistic subs, 11 aircraft carriers, 10 amphibious assault ("Helicopter carriers"), 9 cruisers, and 73 destroyers - plus a large number of all the other subsidiary types!
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
2.5% by 2030, if even that with Labour, is laughable. We need to go back to spending maybe 4% of GDP on defence, which was the sort of level we reached in the early 90s when things looked to be going swimmingly.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
I'm staying a few blocks from the Trump rally and had an option on a ticket to it, but no. I couldn't bring myself to say yes, even as an "experience".
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
His "Who do you think you are?" Episode was fascinating, particularly his family fleeing Czarist pogroms in Lithuania to come to Britain.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
Nobody is playing party games except you.
You posted in fear / outrage about the awful state of the Royal Navy. If the Conservative Party - in office for the last 14 years - aren't responsible, then who are?
Its YOUR fault. Your party broke the Navy as they broke so many other things. And you supported them to the last.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Brexit
What did Cameron do to stop the invasion of Ukraine in 2014? He left it up to the French and Germans to negotiate in the Normandy format. Boris Johnson was far more effective, not that you would ever admit it.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
I'm staying a few blocks from the Trump rally and had an option on a ticket to it, but no. I couldn't bring myself to say yes, even as an "experience".
I think you should have gone, to see what it was like.
Oh, and election in Lithuania today too. Big win for the left, who top the poll, although short of an overall majority. Worryingly strong result for the populist right too, however, with a party led by Remigijus Žemaitaitis, after he was kicked out of his previous party for anti-Semitism.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
Somewhat related - I've been trying to track down an old thriller from that period (I think!). Certainly had a 1930s feel). I had a radio dramatisation of it. It was a couple - the husband was a gentleman/amateur detective of the 'serious sort'. There is some sort of threat to the nation - head of the secret service who is (as I remember) one of the couples uncle or somesuch.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
It sounds rather as though it might have been one of Agatha Christie's Tommy and Tuppence novels. Can't remember any titles, I'm afraid.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
I think the view, back in 2010, was that we’d avoid conflict by becoming an “Aid Superpower.”
If you think this was idiotic … well, I don’t disagree.
Though Foreign Aid was heavily cut too, and DFID folded.
Gotta pay for those tax cuts and triple lock somehow.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
I'm staying a few blocks from the Trump rally and had an option on a ticket to it, but no. I couldn't bring myself to say yes, even as an "experience".
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
Nobody is playing party games except you.
You posted in fear / outrage about the awful state of the Royal Navy. If the Conservative Party - in office for the last 14 years - aren't responsible, then who are?
Its YOUR fault. Your party broke the Navy as they broke so many other things. And you supported them to the last.
CR resigned from the Conservatives over the defence cuts.
The Conservatives have proved as reckless as Baldwin in running down the armed forces. Labour and the Lib Dems have proved as reckless as Lansbury in going along with it.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
Somewhat related - I've been trying to track down an old thriller from that period (I think!). Certainly had a 1930s feel). I had a radio dramatisation of it. It was a couple - the husband was a gentleman/amateur detective of the 'serious sort'. There is some sort of threat to the nation - head of the secret service who is (as I remember) one of the couples uncle or somesuch.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
It sounds rather as though it might have been one of Agatha Christie's Tommy and Tuppence novels. Can't remember any titles, I'm afraid.
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
I'm staying a few blocks from the Trump rally and had an option on a ticket to it, but no. I couldn't bring myself to say yes, even as an "experience".
The Turkish pistol bloke from the Olympics rocked up yesterday in his trackie and won European Championships.....he looks like he just popped in on the way to the corner shop for the morning papers, a pint of milk and some fags,
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
I think the view, back in 2010, was that we’d avoid conflict by becoming an “Aid Superpower.”
If you think this was idiotic … well, I don’t disagree.
Though Foreign Aid was heavily cut too, and DFID folded.
Gotta pay for those tax cuts and triple lock somehow.
We are where we are. The attitude of the government towards defence, from 2010-24 was wholly despicable
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
Nobody is playing party games except you.
You posted in fear / outrage about the awful state of the Royal Navy. If the Conservative Party - in office for the last 14 years - aren't responsible, then who are?
Its YOUR fault. Your party broke the Navy as they broke so many other things. And you supported them to the last.
Let's be fair, it shouldn't be forgotten they had help breaking things for the first five years. Those were the five years when they were solely focused on breaking the country, their effort after that was concentrated on getting Brexit and negotiating the worst possible deal.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
People who view mainstream centre left politicians as communists are sure as eggs outing themselves as far right extremists.
Oh, and election in Lithuania today too. Big win for the left, who top the poll, although short of an overall majority. Worryingly strong result for the populist right too, however, with a party led by Remigijus Žemaitaitis, after he was kicked out of his previous party for anti-Semitism.
I feel obliged to ask too much or not enough antisemitism?
update on the inhaler issue....a mere 10 hours after I asked for an emergency prescription for a pretty innocuos medication hey have agreed...only six hours after I can actually pick the prescription up/ Well done nhs I will be slow clapping you if I end up going to a&e tonight
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
People who view mainstream centre left politicians as communists are sure as eggs outing themselves as far right extremists.
When does the Nazi flag waving start at the Bund Rally ?
Ferguson: "The fact that Harris has resorted to playing the Hitler card is a sign of desperation, so I'll go ahead and say it. She's losing this election. "
You know who else has called Trump Hitler?
Yeah, but Vance means it as a compliment.
All of the Trumpites do. Its *good* that we're electing a fascist because Harris is a fascist.
The usual claim is that Harris is a 'communist'.
I'd argue there are much stronger signals that Trump (and many of his supporters...) are fascists.
People who view mainstream centre left politicians as communists are sure as eggs outing themselves as far right extremists.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
Somewhat related - I've been trying to track down an old thriller from that period (I think!). Certainly had a 1930s feel). I had a radio dramatisation of it. It was a couple - the husband was a gentleman/amateur detective of the 'serious sort'. There is some sort of threat to the nation - head of the secret service who is (as I remember) one of the couples uncle or somesuch.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
It sounds rather as though it might have been one of Agatha Christie's Tommy and Tuppence novels. Can't remember any titles, I'm afraid.
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
Nobody is playing party games except you.
You posted in fear / outrage about the awful state of the Royal Navy. If the Conservative Party - in office for the last 14 years - aren't responsible, then who are?
Its YOUR fault. Your party broke the Navy as they broke so many other things. And you supported them to the last.
Let's be fair, it shouldn't be forgotten they had help breaking things for the first five years. Those were the five years when they were solely focused on breaking the country, their effort after that was concentrated on getting Brexit and negotiating the worst possible deal.
Though Defence was one of the Tories portfolios under the Coalition not LD.
Regarding this election, whoever wins wins. I am not voting in it, so I cannot do anything about it. Both scenarios are bad; the risks with Trump being slightly greater and more existential in nature.
The one thing I find quite unbelievable is the idea that Harris is going to sort out the war in Ukraine. I guess she would probably just continue the existing policy of drip feeding support to prolong an existing stalemate in the hope of a Russian collapse that seems unlikely to happen, whilst domestic opposition to the war in the US increases, other geopolitical challenges mount up, and Europe uses the US/NATO as protection so as to avoid spending on defence. This is surely just a continuation of an outdated arrangement leading to more decline and eventual failure? I would see the election of Trump as an opportunity which is not necessarily a bad thing - it could lead to some kind of intermediate resolution of the existing conflict and Europe taking greater responsibility for dealing with Russia. It might alternatively go very badly, but so could prolonging the existing situation.
As I've said on here before, the current position in the Ukraine works well for almost everybody - obviously not those doing the fighting and dying and obviously not those civilians whose homes have been destroyed and lives shattered but for the rest of the world, it's not too bad.
The military-industrial complex is more than happy - armaments are being manufactured, sold and used while any thought of cutting defence spending to help reduce national indebtedness is on the back burner. It also suits Putin and even Zelenskyy as it keeps both leaders pretty much entrenched in Government.
The rest of us have got used to it - we've even got past the issues with the shortages of sunflower oil (?). Resolving the war one way or the other will cause change and have consequences and that's inherently more risky than the current status quo.
The current situation is a fucking disaster for Europe. And possibly for western liberal democracy.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I enjoyed that Malkovich Poirot. It had nothing to do with the books but the background of incipient fascism was interesting and it was refreshing to have a rather shabby inter war milieu rather than flappers and cocktails. My husband is an Agathe Christie purist and hated it though.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
May I offer you, in addition, a little advice. Bear in mind that the amateur professional is peculiarly rapacious. This applies both to women and to people who play cards. If you must back horses, back them at a reasonable price and both ways. And, if you insist on blowing out your brains, do it in some place where you will not cause mess and inconvenience.
Gaudy Night?
The Nine Tailors is the best. My mind turns to it every New Year's Eve about 4 o'clock and that wonderful Lincolnshire snowbound fenland opening on the last day of 1929, Wimsey and Bunter adrift in a frozen waste. Sayers puts her young heart into the story as its based on the world she was brought up in, and it shows. She creates an entire rural community and landscape, and a great story.
It really isn't.
The best Dorothy L Sayers book is Strong Poison, which is an absolute classic.
There are then two or three very strong books: Murder Must Advertise and Gaudy Night, and *possibly* Clouds of Witness.
I also have a soft spot for Unnatural Death and an Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club.
The rest are fine, but do not bear rereading: Five Red Herrings, Nine Tailors, etc.
Here is an example of nhs waste for you. Two days now since I lost my ventolin inhaler and cant get a prescription.....fighting with national health 111 all I am asking for is give me an emergency prescription in case I have an attack....they keep insisting despite having been prescribed it for 40 odd years I have to goto a walk in centre I can't actually get to rather than just issuing the prescription to get me through...if I have an asthma attack tonight the nhs will have to raise an ambulance.....get me in ed....give me oxygen etc...its not like its a dangerous or addictive drug
So an asthma attack will cost the a couple of thousand rather than just issuing the fucking prescription
Funny that everyone's talking about asthma because I started having a bit of it for the first time in ages a few days ago. Had to dig out my inhaler which is 2 years out of date.
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
It'll be a bit like Poland after their recent election. It's still a democracy but when the Democrats eventually retake the White House they'll have to spend ages clearing out the Trump appointees from the Civil Service and judiciary.
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
In 2017 when Trump took office there was talk about the "cool heads" and "adults in the room" who would prevent Trump from doing anything rash or dangerous. Those very people are now warning America about what Trump is really like and the real threat he presents to democractic government and the rule of law. Trump on the other hand now condemns such people and implies he won't appoint anyone like them next time.
2.5% by 2030, if even that with Labour, is laughable. We need to go back to spending maybe 4% of GDP on defence, which was the sort of level we reached in the early 90s when things looked to be going swimmingly.
The terrifying thing is even if we started spending 4% right now it would be a decade or more before it would result in any significant strengthening of the armed forces. Particularly so the RN, the yards in Glasgow and Barrow are booked up well into the 2030s.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I enjoyed that Malkovich Poirot. It had nothing to do with the books but the background of incipient fascism was interesting and it was refreshing to have a rather shabby inter war milieu rather than flappers and cocktails. My husband is an Agathe Christie purist and hated it though.
I liked the Malkovitch one and I would like to see a sequel
Depressingly, all these clips from the Trump rally suggest that overt racism is no longer considered a barrier to electoral success. The USA is going backwards.
I'm staying a few blocks from the Trump rally and had an option on a ticket to it, but no. I couldn't bring myself to say yes, even as an "experience".
I think you should have gone, to see what it was like.
Yeah maybe. But I can pretty much guess what it will be like. And I'm not sure there's enough hot water in this hotel for the kind of shower I'd need afterwards.
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
That's the main difference isn't it? The Trump 1 team was by and large were a disparate mix of traditional Republicans, sycophants, chancers, with only a few really nasty borderline fascist ideologues. As a result, and because many hadn't been anywhere near government before they were hugely ineffectual. He wasted his first year on a doomed attempt to repeal Obamacare, they got hammered in the mid-terms and Covid screwed his last year.Plus kept firing people for not being loyal.
Now the fear is that there are a group of people around Trump, who very much know what they want to do, pls how to do it - and it isn't pleasant or democratic. These are people who openly admire Orban and can barely suppress their sneaking admiration for Putin.
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
In 2017 when Trump took office there was talk about the "cool heads" and "adults in the room" who would prevent Trump from doing anything rash or dangerous. Those very people are now warning America about what Trump is really like and the real threat he presents to democractic government and the rule of law. Trump on the other hand now condemns such people and implies he won't appoint anyone like them next time.
And in 2021 it was indeed Pence who stood up and blocked Trump's attempts to steal an election.
We know Vance would not do so.
(Incidentally I missed out on an awesome pun there. I should have tried out 'Unquiet Goes the Don.')
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
In 2017 when Trump took office there was talk about the "cool heads" and "adults in the room" who would prevent Trump from doing anything rash or dangerous. Those very people are now warning America about what Trump is really like and the real threat he presents to democractic government and the rule of law. Trump on the other hand now condemns such people and implies he won't appoint anyone like them next time.
States outright he wouldn't.
It's one reason there is too much complacency that because things held up last time they would be fine this time. The immunity issue change provides another reason, for a start, as the original post notes.
The Turkish pistol bloke from the Olympics rocked up yesterday in his trackie and won European Championships.....he looks like he just popped in on the way to the corner shop for the morning papers, a pint of milk and some fags,
One thing we didn’t really discuss in the last thread, when discussing how Trump 2 might be different from Trump 1 - the latitude of action which the new (Constitution perverting) Presidential immunity gives him.
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time. Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
Trump, himself, possibly not. Because he's erratic, very confused and not very energetic any more. He can't usually focus long enough to be a threat, or work out what he wants to do. It's one reason why his first administration was such a disaster and he's declined a long way since.
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
In 2017 when Trump took office there was talk about the "cool heads" and "adults in the room" who would prevent Trump from doing anything rash or dangerous. Those very people are now warning America about what Trump is really like and the real threat he presents to democractic government and the rule of law. Trump on the other hand now condemns such people and implies he won't appoint anyone like them next time.
The cool heads are the ones who gave America a foreign policy of "forgiving Russia and punishing France". They still haven't processed their failure.
Lloyd George knew my father; Father knew Lloyd George.
Labour's pretence about being very different to the other lot, the first 100 or so days, has shown business as usual, no matter how many times Rachael Reeves will bang on about being the first female chancellor on Wednesday breaking that glass ceiling, if you were a donor or a family member, interview not required for a prime job.
Claire Reynolds is chair of the Labour Women's Network and is arguably an even more significant figure within the party than her husband is. Her new job (paid for by the party and not the taxpayer) is to liaise with Labour's MPs, so the fact that she is well known to most of them is what got her the job, not the fact she is married to one of them.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
Lloyd George knew my father; Father knew Lloyd George.
Labour's pretence about being very different to the other lot, the first 100 or so days, has shown business as usual, no matter how many times Rachael Reeves will bang on about being the first female chancellor on Wednesday breaking that glass ceiling, if you were a donor or a family member, interview not required for a prime job.
Claire Reynolds is chair of the Labour Women's Network and is arguably an even more significant figure within the party than her husband is. Her new job (paid for by the party and not the taxpayer) is to liaise with Labour's MPs, so the fact that she is well known to most of them is what got her the job, not the fact she is married to one of them.
If that was the only appointment you might have a point.
Interesting in the sense many will not have known they were still a going concern. It's a long time since their leader was, inexplicably included with major party leaders on an Independent election front page.
The Madison rally is incredible. May as well have fallen down a timehole and it is 1939 all over again. The same slogans, the same lies. Ranting about "REAL Americans" etc etc.
The Madison rally is incredible. May as well have fallen down a timehole and it is 1939 all over again. The same slogans, the same lies. Ranting about "REAL Americans" etc etc.
Popular stuff, unfortunately. Sufficiently so? Let's hope not!
The Madison rally is incredible. May as well have fallen down a timehole and it is 1939 all over again. The same slogans, the same lies. Ranting about "REAL Americans" etc etc.
Good test of policing over Mike Amesbury. Has to be arrested on Monday morning. Can't believe he still hasn't been suspended by Labour. Truly shocking stuff. Stiff sentence has to follow.
He hasn't been charged yet
The PB Jury has given it's verdict and the Judge has his black cap at the ready.
The Madison rally is incredible. May as well have fallen down a timehole and it is 1939 all over again. The same slogans, the same lies. Ranting about "REAL Americans" etc etc.
Popular stuff, unfortunately. Sufficiently so? Let's hope not!
But if they do win, the voters can't claim they didn't know what they were voting for.
Maybe it's just something that society has to go through every few generations. Good night and good luck, as the man put it.
stodge - I don't mean to valourise Zelensky but I doubt he wants an endless war just so he can stay in power. We do seem worryingly short of kit on defence but consider how different things would look if all Nato countries had at least met the 2% GDP target after 2014?
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
The Madison rally is incredible. May as well have fallen down a timehole and it is 1939 all over again. The same slogans, the same lies. Ranting about "REAL Americans" etc etc.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I enjoyed that Malkovich Poirot. It had nothing to do with the books but the background of incipient fascism was interesting and it was refreshing to have a rather shabby inter war milieu rather than flappers and cocktails. My husband is an Agathe Christie purist and hated it though.
I don't think you have to be a purist to be pulled out of the moment by John Malkovich's dire cod-French accent, but hey, if you found something to enjoy, well done.
stodge - I don't mean to valourise Zelensky but I doubt he wants an endless war just so he can stay in power. We do seem worryingly short of kit on defence but consider how different things would look if all Nato countries had at least met the 2% GDP target after 2014?
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
It feels like time for some proper toughening up of sanctions though. Russia seems more likely to be beaten on economics than the battlefield at the moment.
They’re progressing very rapidly in parts of Eastern Ukraine now despite taking heavy casualties. By rights they should have no equipment and no money to buy it with, but the sanctions are leaky as a sieve.
Good test of policing over Mike Amesbury. Has to be arrested on Monday morning. Can't believe he still hasn't been suspended by Labour. Truly shocking stuff. Stiff sentence has to follow.
He hasn't been charged yet
The PB Jury has given it's verdict and the Judge has his black cap at the ready.
Yes, it's very unfair to pass premature judgement. That man could have been a far right extremist, deliberately hitting Amesbury's fist with his face several times.
2.5% by 2030, if even that with Labour, is laughable. We need to go back to spending maybe 4% of GDP on defence, which was the sort of level we reached in the early 90s when things looked to be going swimmingly.
The terrifying thing is even if we started spending 4% right now it would be a decade or more before it would result in any significant strengthening of the armed forces. Particularly so the RN, the yards in Glasgow and Barrow are booked up well into the 2030s.
That’s not entirely true. Some of our biggest deficiencies - ammunition and missile stocks of all types - could be addressed much more quickly. Manufacturing capacity for large capital items, many of which might be becoming obsolete anyway, is less urgent.
"Tory leadership contender Robert Jenrick told the Mail: 'Labour said they'd smash the gangs - instead it looks like they're smashing their constituents instead.
'There is no way you can remain an MP if you're beating up constituents after a night out.'
stodge - I don't mean to valourise Zelensky but I doubt he wants an endless war just so he can stay in power. We do seem worryingly short of kit on defence but consider how different things would look if all Nato countries had at least met the 2% GDP target after 2014?
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
It feels like time for some proper toughening up of sanctions though. Russia seems more likely to be beaten on economics than the battlefield at the moment.
They’re progressing very rapidly in parts of Eastern Ukraine now despite taking heavy casualties. By rights they should have no equipment and no money to buy it with, but the sanctions are leaky as a sieve.
Progressing very rapidly? Please.
The Ukrainian advance into Kursk was rapid - they seized about 1000 square kilometres in a couple of days. Russia has managed to grind over about twice that area of Ukraine over the course of the whole year! Rapid? Utter defeatist crap.
Sanctions could certainly be tougher, or more correctly, the West needs to up its diplomatic game to convince more countries to apply sanctions on Russia. We could do more to help Ukraine win the war by allowing it to strike at military equipment while it is still in Russia - that's how the West would fight a war, and we shouldn't be expecting Ukraine to fight a war in a more difficult way.
But we need to keep a sense of perspective. Russia is advancing only very slowly. See, for example, Phillip O'Brien's recent substack.
2.5% by 2030, if even that with Labour, is laughable. We need to go back to spending maybe 4% of GDP on defence, which was the sort of level we reached in the early 90s when things looked to be going swimmingly.
The terrifying thing is even if we started spending 4% right now it would be a decade or more before it would result in any significant strengthening of the armed forces. Particularly so the RN, the yards in Glasgow and Barrow are booked up well into the 2030s.
That’s not entirely true. Some of our biggest deficiencies - ammunition and missile stocks of all types - could be addressed much more quickly. Manufacturing capacity for large capital items, many of which might be becoming obsolete anyway, is less urgent.
The retention of experienced people is probably the the most important thing the armed services could do more of. That would be much easier with an additional 2% of GDP.
I know three people who were in navy/RAF and all left before they were 30.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
On the subject of Poirot.
I will always have a soft spot for the Peter Ustinov Death on the Nile, not least because of Angela Lansbury as the drunken writer.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
Despite recent attempts to re-imagine both Poirot and Miss Marple, both have, I think, such iconic portrayals that there is little that should be done with them beyond showing them again. As period set drama they don’t age that much either.
Sadly I know the stories far too well, so have recently started reading the Lord Peter Wimsey series. Enjoying it so far.
Wimsey is a thousand times better than Poirot. In both written and TV form (as portrayed by Ian Carmichael). Though he only really takes off when Harriet Vane joins the stories. I love their interactions (and with Bunter as well). Perhaps it's the PTSD that features in many of the stories (shell shock from WW1) that grants the character a little humour and humility.
This is a hill I will die on.
Sayers commented that when she wanted to marry Wimsey off and created Harriet Vane for him (a reaction to her own disastrous affairs with John Cournos and then Bill White) she realised she had to make him a much more serious and deeper character than he had been hitherto. Which is why he 'takes off' in later books in a way he doesn't in say, Whose Body? or Unnatural Death.
It's actually easy to see in the TV series as well, with Carmichael playing the lighthearted, Whimsical Wimsey to perfection and Petherbridge portraying him with much more depth and feeling in the three adaptations with Harriet Walter.
Somewhat related - I've been trying to track down an old thriller from that period (I think!). Certainly had a 1930s feel). I had a radio dramatisation of it. It was a couple - the husband was a gentleman/amateur detective of the 'serious sort'. There is some sort of threat to the nation - head of the secret service who is (as I remember) one of the couples uncle or somesuch.
Wife has to go away, tours the country incognito, meets various people including being rescued by an Eurythmy school group. Eventually ending up at some sort of country house (natch) where some villainous rich industrial types were planning a fascist coup. I think the game was given away by a clock-face in the ornamental garden - but I might be hallucinating that part.
If anyone has any idea - it would put me out of my misery!
I listened to it while I was down with the flu one year - so I could be confusing a dozen other stories. But I've never been able to track it down and I'm convinced it was real.
It sounds rather as though it might have been one of Agatha Christie's Tommy and Tuppence novels. Can't remember any titles, I'm afraid.
It does tick a lot of bells of golden era characters for me. But nothing has ever shown up when I search. I have a horrible feeling I'm going to be skimming through 100s of mp3's over my Christmas break to solve the riddle. In a very feeble 2020's version of a golden age thriller...
stodge - I don't mean to valourise Zelensky but I doubt he wants an endless war just so he can stay in power. We do seem worryingly short of kit on defence but consider how different things would look if all Nato countries had at least met the 2% GDP target after 2014?
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
It feels like time for some proper toughening up of sanctions though. Russia seems more likely to be beaten on economics than the battlefield at the moment.
They’re progressing very rapidly in parts of Eastern Ukraine now despite taking heavy casualties. By rights they should have no equipment and no money to buy it with, but the sanctions are leaky as a sieve.
Progressing very rapidly? Please.
The Ukrainian advance into Kursk was rapid - they seized about 1000 square kilometres in a couple of days. Russia has managed to grind over about twice that area of Ukraine over the course of the whole year! Rapid? Utter defeatist crap.
Sanctions could certainly be tougher, or more correctly, the West needs to up its diplomatic game to convince more countries to apply sanctions on Russia. We could do more to help Ukraine win the war by allowing it to strike at military equipment while it is still in Russia - that's how the West would fight a war, and we shouldn't be expecting Ukraine to fight a war in a more difficult way.
But we need to keep a sense of perspective. Russia is advancing only very slowly. See, for example, Phillip O'Brien's recent substack.
A sobering thread from someone close to the action. I recommend reading. Retweeted by Mick Ryan, who’s hardly a Ukraine pessimist.
We are in danger of continuity bias and assuming what’s happened the last 2 years will continue. That’s as true of those thinking Russia is invincible as it is of those assuming Ukraine has inexhaustible reserves of manpower.
Powerful stuff in the header. The deniers bemuse me - naaah, he won't do that, or even naah, he didn't say that. Despite the evil enemies of Murica like Jake Tapper having the evidence.
The deniers keep saying "he is winning". Which is of course what the Twitter algorithm is rigged to suggest. Maybe he is. The question isn't "could he win" - its "should he be allowed to win"
We’ve reached a geopolitical outlook as disturbing as the 1930’s.
In two weeks’ time the USA might have ceased to be an ally to the UK and Europe. We’ve had ample warning that we have to step up, but we preferred to free ride.
Poland and the Baltic States have ramped up military spending, but most European leaders (including UK Conservatives), think that “International Law” is enough of a defence.
I'm fucking terrified by our attitude to defence, and our refusal to fund it properly.
Just 19 ships in the Royal Navy, most of which don't have the fuel or sailors to run.
I mean, WTF?
Yes, what were the Tories playing at?
Don't PB Tories get it? "19 ships in the Royal Navy". You not only voted for it, you posted increasingly angst-ridden guff on here demanding that people VOTE for the people who destroyed our Navy.
I must have missed that strong, bold and brave Liberal Democrat defence policy.
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
Unfortunately not only is no party serious about rearmament, very few MPs are serious about rearmament, and this reflects the complete lack of interest across the country as a whole.
When you consider the level of debate around the winter fuel allowance cut, and consider how consequential that is relative to the size of the budget deficit, or the scale of the problems facing Britain - of which rearmament is but one, albeit one where the consequences for failure will be particularly acute - it's hard not to conclude that Britain as a whole is not a serious country.
People generally have unserious solutions for an unserious priority list.
In the 1982 edition of "The Penguin Atlas of Recent History" Colin McEvedy said, speaking of the Cold War: "Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
(In the 2002 edition, he described the instability that occurred soon after -- without crediting those in the West who had worked to make it happen.)
FWIW, in 1982 I thought the Soviet Union would not last, but did not expect it to collapse, as soon as it did. Similarly, I do not expect Putin's regime to last, though it may outlive me, as I turned 81 last August.
Will it outlive him? Good question. I think it unlikely, but would not quarrel with anyone who can give a plausible post-Putin scenario.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
I am not a big cinema buff, but I remember the hype about the first two. I didn't even notice A Haunting in Venice. Sounds like I should give it a go.
2.5% by 2030, if even that with Labour, is laughable. We need to go back to spending maybe 4% of GDP on defence, which was the sort of level we reached in the early 90s when things looked to be going swimmingly.
The terrifying thing is even if we started spending 4% right now it would be a decade or more before it would result in any significant strengthening of the armed forces. Particularly so the RN, the yards in Glasgow and Barrow are booked up well into the 2030s.
That’s not entirely true. Some of our biggest deficiencies - ammunition and missile stocks of all types - could be addressed much more quickly. Manufacturing capacity for large capital items, many of which might be becoming obsolete anyway, is less urgent.
For the Royal Navy the most pressing issue is finding enough sailors to be able to put the existing ships to sea.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
On the subject of Poirot.
I will always have a soft spot for the Peter Ustinov Death on the Nile, not least because of Angela Lansbury as the drunken writer.
There are quite a few stories from that era that seem ripe for a 're-imagining'. The Ministry of Fear keeps coming to mind for me (there is a good R4 version). And Wyndham's The Kraken Wakes (which I could easily see as an eco-drama, just to tick some commissioning boxes if nothing else).
The frustrating thing with that is even a plurality of Trump voters say they want both parties to cooperate, but somehow the Democrats haven't been able to convince them not to vote for someone who wants to put politicians from one of those parties in jail.
stodge - I don't mean to valourise Zelensky but I doubt he wants an endless war just so he can stay in power. We do seem worryingly short of kit on defence but consider how different things would look if all Nato countries had at least met the 2% GDP target after 2014?
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
It feels like time for some proper toughening up of sanctions though. Russia seems more likely to be beaten on economics than the battlefield at the moment.
They’re progressing very rapidly in parts of Eastern Ukraine now despite taking heavy casualties. By rights they should have no equipment and no money to buy it with, but the sanctions are leaky as a sieve.
Progressing very rapidly? Please.
The Ukrainian advance into Kursk was rapid - they seized about 1000 square kilometres in a couple of days. Russia has managed to grind over about twice that area of Ukraine over the course of the whole year! Rapid? Utter defeatist crap.
Sanctions could certainly be tougher, or more correctly, the West needs to up its diplomatic game to convince more countries to apply sanctions on Russia. We could do more to help Ukraine win the war by allowing it to strike at military equipment while it is still in Russia - that's how the West would fight a war, and we shouldn't be expecting Ukraine to fight a war in a more difficult way.
But we need to keep a sense of perspective. Russia is advancing only very slowly. See, for example, Phillip O'Brien's recent substack.
A sobering thread from someone close to the action. I recommend reading. Retweeted by Mick Ryan, who’s hardly a Ukraine pessimist.
We are in danger of continuity bias and assuming what’s happened the last 2 years will continue. That’s as true of those thinking Russia is invincible as it is of those assuming Ukraine has inexhaustible reserves of manpower.
How can you despise Poirot? He's fantastic. Nothing more relaxing that watching a Poirot.
The Poirot series with David Suchet was hardly well-lit enough to see what was happening. At the time, I read somewhere that the producers wanted to be reasonably accurate about the lighting levels in those days. But it made watching very hard work.
I never detected that at all.
David Suchet was perfect as Poirot.
Me neither - it seemed very well lit. The later mess with John Malkovich was afaicr quite poorly lit.
God, that was poor.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Kenneth Branagh's ghastly overwrought attempts where everyone cries and he inserts bit of Shakespeare aren't much better.
I find myself a bit baffled by the Branagh ones. A large chunk of television output is dedicated to crime procedurals of all types, I have watched police officers, consultants, medical examiners, fake psychics, whatever, solve murders in every way imaginable, in ways surprising and predictable - what's the point of spending $100m for what basically amounts to an extended episode of one of those?
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
I feel asleep on the first one. The second one I had to leave about one third in - I just wasn't prepared to lose further brain cells. I'll take your word for it that the third was better.
Good test of policing over Mike Amesbury. Has to be arrested on Monday morning. Can't believe he still hasn't been suspended by Labour. Truly shocking stuff. Stiff sentence has to follow.
He hasn't been charged yet
The PB Jury has given it's verdict and the Judge has his black cap at the ready.
Yes, it's very unfair to pass premature judgement. That man could have been a far right extremist, deliberately hitting Amesbury's fist with his face several times.
Did I contest that the guy is not guilty? No I did not.
The first Branagh Poirot was OK. Nothing great, or anything, but a perfectly entertaining couple of hours of entertainment. I'd give it a sold 5.5/10.
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
I'd broadly agree with that although I didn't like the third as much as you did. Even though they aren't great films I do like the fact that such films are being made. Most thrillers tend towards a contemporary setting, and try to be a bit too cool, too violent, and too process/tech obsessed. Fincher's The Killer being an example that was disappointing.
That Branagh is making old-fashioned thrillers and having fun doing it is something that I hope we see more of.
Comments
We can all play party games with this. But the point is that no party is serious about rearmament. And that is one of our biggest problems.
The Nine Tailors is the best. My mind turns to it every New Year's Eve about 4 o'clock and that wonderful Lincolnshire snowbound fenland opening on the last day of 1929, Wimsey and Bunter adrift in a frozen waste. Sayers puts her young heart into the story as its based on the world she was brought up in, and it shows. She creates an entire rural community and landscape, and a great story.
SOP for him, of course, to accuse opponents of being what he is himself.
Why on earth did he even try?
He can only ever play John Malkovich.
Alan Clark's diaries have him claiming that his Defence Review (1990?) was the only way John Major would get the funds for tax cuts.
Customer: Malkovich, Malkovich!
https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/tv-series/episodes/david-suchet
You posted in fear / outrage about the awful state of the Royal Navy. If the Conservative Party - in office for the last 14 years - aren't responsible, then who are?
Its YOUR fault. Your party broke the Navy as they broke so many other things. And you supported them to the last.
Total vote in 2020 = 158.4m
So 27% of votes already cast if turnout was the same.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/early-vote
Gotta pay for those tax cuts and triple lock somehow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_at_the_Garden
The Conservatives have proved as reckless as Baldwin in running down the armed forces. Labour and the Lib Dems have proved as reckless as Lansbury in going along with it.
https://x.com/Aisezisan/status/1850227263897301052
The issue is how we get out of where we are.
Horrific and Stephen Millers comments put the icing on the cake .
Most presidents might be trusted not to abuse that, most of the time.
Does anyone really believe that Trump won’t ?
The big danger would be his decision to appoint his sycophants, who *do* have staying power, and then enable their actions which could be highly sinister.
Surprised it can contain his ego.
We had 19 escort vessels in 2015, 15 now.
The best Dorothy L Sayers book is Strong Poison, which is an absolute classic.
There are then two or three very strong books: Murder Must Advertise and Gaudy Night, and *possibly* Clouds of Witness.
I also have a soft spot for Unnatural Death and an Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club.
The rest are fine, but do not bear rereading: Five Red Herrings, Nine Tailors, etc.
Now the fear is that there are a group of people around Trump, who very much know what they want to do, pls how to do it - and it isn't pleasant or democratic. These are people who openly admire Orban and can barely suppress their sneaking admiration for Putin.
We know Vance would not do so.
(Incidentally I missed out on an awesome pun there. I should have tried out 'Unquiet Goes the Don.')
It's one reason there is too much complacency that because things held up last time they would be fine this time. The immunity issue change provides another reason, for a start, as the original post notes. Dude's a legend.
I've no issue with Branagh himself, though as I've only read a little Poirot I did find myself asking if he was as much a miserable sad sack as Branagh portrays him.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/26/why-we-decided-to-back-a-motion-to-close-the-womens-equality-party
Maybe it's just something that society has to go through every few generations. Good night and good luck, as the man put it.
Russia is starting to show signs of financial distress. There's no point paying attention to the figures that they cook up, just stick to what we know. Interest rates and bond yields back to the emergency territory at the start of 2022. If only there was someone who wanted to stick the knife in? Given Putin's increasing closeness to Iran (with reports that they helped the Houthis target ships in the Red Sea!) I wonder if the Saudis might boost oil production after the US election is over. Hopefully leaving Putin holed below the waterline.
We are extremely lucky that so much of Russia's vast ammunition stocks have been destroyed over the last two years. Leaving that aside the casual attitude in the west to current global events does us no favours.
To take just one tiny example:
Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
New shoes for Rudy.
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1850647209240592408
Ron Filipkowski
@RonFilipkowski
·
1h
All I can say is that if the media sanewashes THIS insane Trump rally then they are just irretrievably broken.
They’re progressing very rapidly in parts of Eastern Ukraine now despite taking heavy casualties. By rights they should have no equipment and no money to buy it with, but the sanctions are leaky as a sieve.
Some of our biggest deficiencies - ammunition and missile stocks of all types - could be addressed much more quickly. Manufacturing capacity for large capital items, many of which might be becoming obsolete anyway, is less urgent.
While Trump prepares for his landslide sweep of the Empire State with just over a week until polling day, Harris is in Philadelphia
https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1850619261242294521
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/27/kamala-harris-pennsylvania-philly-rally
'There is no way you can remain an MP if you're beating up constituents after a night out.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14008209/Labour-MP-Mike-Amesbury-SUSPENDED-sucker-punching-constituent-beating-lay-ground-Shocking-CCTV-shows-moment-attack-unfolded-MP-claimed-man-threatened-him.html
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1850631898764026221
The Ukrainian advance into Kursk was rapid - they seized about 1000 square kilometres in a couple of days. Russia has managed to grind over about twice that area of Ukraine over the course of the whole year! Rapid? Utter defeatist crap.
Sanctions could certainly be tougher, or more correctly, the West needs to up its diplomatic game to convince more countries to apply sanctions on Russia. We could do more to help Ukraine win the war by allowing it to strike at military equipment while it is still in Russia - that's how the West would fight a war, and we shouldn't be expecting Ukraine to fight a war in a more difficult way.
But we need to keep a sense of perspective. Russia is advancing only very slowly. See, for example, Phillip O'Brien's recent substack.
I know three people who were in navy/RAF and all left before they were 30.
I back the people of Georgia as they stand up for their freedom, their rights and their future.
https://x.com/BorisJohnson/status/1850538026037854465
The second one was dire: an expensive cast utterly wasted in a dull and pedestrian telling of a story told better so many times before. 2/10.
The third crashed and burned at the cinema. But you know what? It was by far the best of the bunch. It was imaginative, well acted, and - because it took on a lesser known Christie work - you didn't already "know the answer". I'd give it 7.5/10.
I will always have a soft spot for the Peter Ustinov Death on the Nile, not least because of Angela Lansbury as the drunken writer.
https://x.com/uacontrolmap/status/1850621682270269467?s=46
We are in danger of continuity bias and assuming what’s happened the last 2 years will continue. That’s as true of those thinking Russia is invincible as it is of those assuming Ukraine has inexhaustible reserves of manpower.
When you consider the level of debate around the winter fuel allowance cut, and consider how consequential that is relative to the size of the budget deficit, or the scale of the problems facing Britain - of which rearmament is but one, albeit one where the consequences for failure will be particularly acute - it's hard not to conclude that Britain as a whole is not a serious country.
People generally have unserious solutions for an unserious priority list.
"Whether this situation is comfortable or not, it is certainly stable." (p. 88)
(In the 2002 edition, he described the instability that occurred soon after -- without crediting those in the West who had worked to make it happen.)
FWIW, in 1982 I thought the Soviet Union would not last, but did not expect it to collapse, as soon as it did. Similarly, I do not expect Putin's regime to last, though it may outlive me, as I turned 81 last August.
Will it outlive him? Good question. I think it unlikely, but would not quarrel with anyone who can give a plausible post-Putin scenario.
That Branagh is making old-fashioned thrillers and having fun doing it is something that I hope we see more of.