Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
That seems strange, as there are quite a lot of pinoys and pinays. Maybe they are all happily working in the NHS but it is a good retraining option for any who want a career change or lose their jobs
Yes. I thought that. And English is widely spoken as a second language in the Philippines, rather like India.
You do know there are now machines which can do all this perfectly
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
If the EU banned Twitter/X, the ban would be widely flouted, including by EU politicians.
Given current trends, the question is whether anyone will still be using Twitter by the time the EU makes a decision!
If Musk's attitude to advertisers is a template, we'll be forced to use Twitter, whether we like it or not.
If Twitter is losing so much money can't we arrange for it to be lost over here?
It's a collation of self-serving, meaningless bullshit, as is normal for Trump. It's also 2 years old, so the Twitter poster's claim that it is an "announcement" is a lie. It doesn't actually define anything he doesn't like; it's a word salad to let him go for whoever is today's opponent.
Here's the original announcement from December 2022, with transcript. It's Trump reading out a bit of his platform:
Musk's orgasmic "YES!" is interesting, because if it does what Trump says Musk's everyday practices are in the crosshairs eg: Reforming Section 230 protections to hold tech giants accountable for biased content moderation.
Trump and Musk love content moderation, as long as it’s content moderation that favours them. Anyone who thinks they really believe in free speech is naïve.
"Nowhere is the impact of the pandemic clearer than in Pendle, the rural district in east Lancashire where Ali grew up. It is the epicentre of the national worklessness crisis.
In the four years between March 2020 and March 2024, the employment rate in Pendle plunged from 74pc to 47.9pc – a fall of 26.1pc and the biggest drop recorded in any of the 329 local authorities across England and Wales, analysis shows.
The employment rate has recovered to 58.3pc since, but for a time less than half the local population was in work.
This is not because of a large rise in unemployment but rather because of a jump in the proportion of people who are economically inactive, meaning they are neither employed nor looking for a job."
Could be that, because Pendle has a high proportion of religious people, this is in fact due to their failure to "lockdown" because of insisting of gathering together for prayer meetings, resulting in more health problems than if they had obeyed Boris's rules.
Edit: Does the Telegraph say which local authority had the lowest drop in economic activity?
I'm not wasting time on this one; that newspaper is a cesspit.
A pity you didn’t read it - it is actually a decent piece for a change. It argues that COVID took some existing underlying problems, and smashed a lot of low level education and employment.
See, especially the interview with a chap running a job club/community centre for 16+ trying to get out of the deprivation cycle.
Religion isn’t mentioned in the piece at all, incidentally.
On topic: grateful to those who stand and campaign and to the PB team who contribute by providing this forum and through it the wider political discourse.
FPT: which leads me on to ask about the potential legal implications to PB of a US law effectively crippling moderation.
Does this have the potential to end PB as a discussion forum? It has a US based moderator, but more than that it has Vanilla as a forum provider, a .com address and so forth. Any US exposure potentially runs counter to it being able to comply with the moderation required to meet UK libel law, doesn't it? Any PB lawyers care to comment on the extent of the headache here?
It’s all bluster. The EU will simply block sites that do not have content moderation, and the UK will continue to enable libel suits.
If Trump wants to pick a fight with the EU then doing so on consumer regulation and data privacy is just about the stupidest possible decision. He’d basically be launching a frontal attack on the bloc’s most powerful forces.
If the EU banned Twitter/X, the ban would be widely flouted, including by EU politicians.
Given current trends, the question is whether anyone will still be using Twitter by the time the EU makes a decision!
If Musk's attitude to advertisers is a template, we'll be forced to use Twitter, whether we like it or not.
If Twitter is losing so much money can't we arrange for it to be lost over here?
This is all a load of shite. The EU is terrified Trump will abandon NATO and they are not gonna pick a fight with his best mate Elon musk
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
That seems strange, as there are quite a lot of pinoys and pinays. Maybe they are all happily working in the NHS but it is a good retraining option for any who want a career change or lose their jobs
Yes. I thought that. And English is widely spoken as a second language in the Philippines, rather like India.
You do know there are now machines which can do all this perfectly
Pretty sure smelly snails and order food were machine translations!
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
There will certainly be pressure inside Ukraine to go nuclear. I think they generally see the Budapest memorandum as a naive mistake that they bitterly regret now. And the logic follows. If other countries haven't kept to the agreement then why should Ukraine?
As for being reliant on other countries, well it's clear those countries they can rely on may be disappearing.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
You jest, but actually pretty plausible given Ukraine has the materials needed to make the nukes, and Poland has the will.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Supermarkets are high-turnover, low -margin businesses. Economics lesson 0.1- if I buy a can of coke every morning for 99p and sell it every evening for £1, In a year I am making 1% profit on turnover, but 365% profit on capital.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Interesting that the Times shock ! horror ! £1bn Budget Bill for Tesco headline/subheadline had been through the standard UK media "turn everything to bullshit" filter, and does not mention that it is a cost over 5 years of the Parliament, not one year. Mentioned in the text and not put on social media, of course.
For those who follow, it sticks out because the Sainsbury Bill is £120-150m per annum, and Tesco is not 7-8 times bigger than Sainsbury.
For those who still think I’m totally wrong what I argued earlier, and rubbish at economics, tonight’s Sunday Times is for you. And it’s all so simple and Black and White.
I still know we don’t have to swallow such games and large figures bounded around as fact. Lady Thatcher taught me that by her bravest actions.
I am amused by people thinking that increasing business costs won’t result in higher prices.
When the cost of labour went up, due to post COVID pay rises, I don’t recall any claims that this wouldn’t result in price inflation. It did.
Now the cost of labour has gone up for a different reason.
It’s a desperate kind of populism to claim that this won’t have an effect.
The thing is that while the NI bill for Tesco is increasing by £200m - that's less than 0.5% of their turnover.
They should be easily able to increase their prices to cover it.
Supermarkets are high-turnover, low -margin businesses. Economics lesson 0.1- if I buy a can of coke every morning for 99p and sell it every evening for £1, In a year I am making 1% profit on turnover, but 365% profit on capital.
Someone using the “it’s only an X percentage of their turnover” is either an idiot or assuming the person they’re telling is. The PB audience as a group usually isn’t the latter and is more informed over the ordinary twitter person. It doesn’t wash with us.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
You jest, but actually pretty plausible given Ukraine has the materials needed to make the nukes, and Poland has the will.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
I would bet long money, that both Poland and Ukraine are testing implosion designs right now. There’s no law against it - you can just crunch chunks of iron, for practise.
The engineering is fairly simple. With the advent of basic computers in the 1960, implosion went from exotic to trivial to design. Especially the 2 point designs, which have zero probability of creating “jets” at the interfaces - because no interfaces. Combined with flying plate designs, you can get light, compact, reliable and efficient in a bag. See the collapse in size of warheads, that made Polaris and Minuteman instantly winning solutions.
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Of course you can be squeezed. A significant number of voters express a single preference only.
Overall in the 4 NE Seats the Lib Dems are up about 7% per seat and did not go backwards in one. That despite Reform picking up 9% of the vote from nowhere. The Tories were up 5% and SNP down 2%. Labour down 5% and nearly wiped out.
My father used to stand as a LIb Dem councillor in Aberdeen 40 years ago when the Lib Dems were strong in the area. The trend is very much coming back to the Scottish Lib Dems and should expect at least one maybe 2 regional seats for the NE in the 2026 elections.
The right wing swing in the working class fishing port of Fraserburgh is stunning. In 2012 the Tories had 6% now the combined Tory / Reform vote is 61%.
I understand it. The Broch is sinking, metaphorically speaking. Reliant on a fishing industry which can’t catch a break, surrounded by farming which can’t catch a break. Endless budget cuts have cut basic services like health and education, there are few answers and voters find themselves stuck in an endless blame game between the Tories and the SNP as to who is to blame.
The Lib Dems could be in a position to take advantage of the anger being generated in Aberdeenshire by the perceived betrayal of the Oil industry. There are a lot of job cuts happening already and a lot more to come. But I am not sure they can as they themselves seem to have bought into Miliband's idiocy.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
The Ukraine victory plan seems wholly unrealistic at this point.
I think it’s pretty clear Russia is keeping Crimea. Trump’s team have said as much.
I wonder if we will see the Kerch Bridge destroyed between now and the end of the year?
Another interesting one would be if Putin happened to be assassinated. Russia is very much all revolving around one single lynchpin, as is the USA now. Without Putin, what would change in Russia, and how?
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Reminds me of going to a tapas bar in Oslo once, with a menu in Spanish and Norwegian and basically guessing what we were ordering. Turns out I like catfish!
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Knocking on doors and delivering leaflets absolutely does make a difference. Those surprise results we see now and then don’t come from nowhere. Five sets of leaflets, the blue hand written letter, the “it’s election day tomorrow”, “vote for the local candidate”, and it matters not if the claims are untrue, the “Only we can beat the con/lab/snp here” when fifth place last time, puts out the impression of someone really hungry for the vote. This works effectively when the incumbent party just go through the motions.
It's a collation of self-serving, meaningless bullshit, as is normal for Trump. It's also 2 years old, so the Twitter poster's claim that it is an "announcement" is a lie. It doesn't actually define anything he doesn't like; it's a word salad to let him go for whoever is today's opponent.
Here's the original announcement from December 2022, with transcript. It's Trump reading out a bit of his platform:
Musk's orgasmic "YES!" is interesting, because if it does what Trump says Musk's everyday practices are in the crosshairs eg: Reforming Section 230 protections to hold tech giants accountable for biased content moderation.
Trump and Musk love content moderation, as long as it’s content moderation that favours them. Anyone who thinks they really believe in free speech is naïve.
Yes. We all remember the much more enlightened “content moderation” of the Democrats and Biden which literally forbade DISCUSSION of the possible lab leak origin of Covid, for a year, on Twitter and Facebook
We weren’t even allowed to debate why we were all dying
The dems are as bad the GOP just more hypocritical
There seems to be reasonable evidence that Iran has plotted to have Trump assassinated. We should make it clear to Trump that we have his back and if he wants to punish Iran by going after its nuclear facilities or IRGC sites he has our support?
What about his mate Putin? Oh hang on a minute he's got rather cozy with the Ayatollahs.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
We have only the evidence of past elections under FPTP, though. That skews results, when people vote for their desired outcome (or against their least desired) in particular constituencies.
How quickly Reform can adapt to that - particularly against a refreshed Tory offering - is an open question. (FWIW, I’d guess not all that quickly, but that’s only a guess.)
Under PR, we’d be looking at very different results, probably along with very different party vote totals, though.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Knocking on doors and delivering leaflets absolutely does make a difference. Those surprise results we see now and then don’t come from nowhere. Five sets of leaflets, the blue hand written letter, the “it’s election day tomorrow”, “vote for the local candidate”, and it matters not if the claims are untrue, the “Only we can beat the con/lab/snp here” when fifth place last time, puts out the impression of someone really hungry for the vote. This works effectively when the incumbent party just go through the motions.
And you need to start your leafleting and door knocking one to two years in advance - building up local campaigns and establishing your brand Starting an intensive campaign only when the election is called will increase your vote but( usually) is not enough to tip the seat.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Reform don't need leaflets to get their views across - GB News does it for them. And in general, the media need the clickbait of the contrast between two extreme views , so centrist views get silenced. Which is why Ed Davey had to resort to bungee jumping to get attention.
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Reminds me of going to a tapas bar in Oslo once, with a menu in Spanish and Norwegian and basically guessing what we were ordering. Turns out I like catfish!
Turns out I LOVE their spicy shrimp. A huge tub of greasy chunky king prawns stir fried in garlic, chili, spring onions and spices and cleverly laid over tranches of fresh cucumber so the juices soaked into the crunchy cucumber. Mmmm
Only problem was that I accidentally ordered about half a ton (I think I went for a sharing dish by mistake)
But they happily put the leftovers in a takeaway box for tomorrows brunch
I could have gone to the hotel restaurant or any of the chain restaurants nearby but I went down backstreets and it was great. Also a lot of hookers
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
We have only the evidence of past elections under FPTP, though. That skews results, when people vote for their desired outcome (or against their least desired) in particular constituencies.
How quickly Reform can adapt to that - particularly against a refreshed Tory offering - is an open question. (FWIW, I’d guess not all that quickly, but that’s only a guess.)
Under PR, we’d be looking at very different results, probably along with very different party vote totals, though.
I have no faith in Reform ever getting to the stage we see with the Lib Dems or the other main parties. As I mentioned prior to the last election, their candidate policy was to put out a message to anyone who had ever vaguely expressed any sort of support for them or any of their predecessors and tell people to contact them if they wanted to be a candidate. Vetting seems to have been pretty much zero and I suspect that in most seats the candidate was simply anyone who said they wanted a go.
I see no evidence (looking from the outside) that they have really got to grips with party organisation and indeed such organisation may actually be anathema to many of their supporters and members. They will continue to survive on popular vote but I don't see them getting far past that stage.
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
That seems strange, as there are quite a lot of pinoys and pinays. Maybe they are all happily working in the NHS but it is a good retraining option for any who want a career change or lose their jobs
Yes. I thought that. And English is widely spoken as a second language in the Philippines, rather like India.
That may be the problem: most Filipinos speak good enough English for most purposes, but maybe not if they are going to stand trial. (Or they feel it is their interest to pretend they don't speak English). So there is not in general enough demand to keep a Tagalog interpreter busy.
If Daniel Lurie *actually* accomplishes this, he will have my vote, my money, and my appreciation for the next cycle. It could be the only thing he does and it would have a deep impact on the city.
When I retire in the new year I’d like to do some stuff to put back into the local community. I’ve been looking at volunteering possibly at Gibside or Beamish. I don’t want to run for election but I’d like to put back into a local community I’m proud to be a part of.
Beamish is fantastic. Visited a few years ago. Extraordinary - and very humbling - to actually be able to walk into the homes of people who lived over a century ago. It rather made me realise how good we have it now, even when we're poor.
You should come back as they have now fifties housing and shops. Still a work in progress but fascinating all the same.
As an engineer with a background in the motor industry I always make a beeline for the buses and also the garage in the 1910’s street.
I must confess when I was there I made a beeline for the pub!
While it was all amazing - the things that really stayed in my mind were the mine, the miner's cottage and the school in the mining village.
I could go to the boozer, the dentist, the high street shop, the mechanic, even the bank, and if I squinted hard enough, it was comparable to modern life, albeit ye-olde-world compared to the places we visit today.
But visiting the mining village made me realise just how different life was three or four generations ago. As I say, cracking place, and I will definitely be back at some point.
You must. The expansion is really good and it is so worthwhile.
We have been half a dozen times. Could never get in the pub 😢
The talk from the dentist was fascinating. Especially how expensive the pain killers were so people didn’t bother and just had the treatment
A better question might be: why do you do what you do in the way that you do it?
Because on most of the conventional metrics, Kamala should have won. She had more money than Trump's campaign; a stronger ground game with more activists; more adverts.
And here in July, Reform picked up more votes than the LibDems despite a shambolic campaign.
So maybe you are wasting time as well as blood delivering leaflets.
As JFK said (almost), “We choose to stand as a LibDem candidate not because it is easy, but because it is hard.”
That was in the context of the space race wasn’t it?
On topic: that looks like a decent result for you, given you might have been squeezed. There must be potential for your party locally?
You can't actually be "squeezed" in an STV election. The LDs already have a councillor in the ward, but they are unlikely to win 2 in all-out elections.
Of course you can be squeezed. A significant number of voters express a single preference only.
Overall in the 4 NE Seats the Lib Dems are up about 7% per seat and did not go backwards in one. That despite Reform picking up 9% of the vote from nowhere. The Tories were up 5% and SNP down 2%. Labour down 5% and nearly wiped out.
My father used to stand as a LIb Dem councillor in Aberdeen 40 years ago when the Lib Dems were strong in the area. The trend is very much coming back to the Scottish Lib Dems and should expect at least one maybe 2 regional seats for the NE in the 2026 elections.
The right wing swing in the working class fishing port of Fraserburgh is stunning. In 2012 the Tories had 6% now the combined Tory / Reform vote is 61%.
I understand it. The Broch is sinking, metaphorically speaking. Reliant on a fishing industry which can’t catch a break, surrounded by farming which can’t catch a break. Endless budget cuts have cut basic services like health and education, there are few answers and voters find themselves stuck in an endless blame game between the Tories and the SNP as to who is to blame.
The Broch reminds me of the mining and steel towns left behind in 1980s, but transported back to the 1950s. Peterheid’s not much better, despite being more prosperous. Fishermen don’t put much back into their local economy, preferring to spend their profits on large, tasteless properties and souped up BMWs.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Has anyone been to the Philippines and ordered the local delicacy: “order food”?
Or should I play it safe and stick to the hairy blood?
It might be worth investing a bit of time in Tagalog. I was being told on Friday that there is a trial coming up and that there are only 2 approved Tagalog interpreters in the UK so they can pretty much name their price. It also means that it is pretty much impossible for 2 trials of Tagalog speakers to proceed in the UK at the same time.
An 80 minute queue for immigration then total anarchy getting a taxi. Like Bangkok 30 years ago but with more guns
On the other hand they might have bars where you can drink without needing to buy an entire fermented sting ray
I was wrong
Apparently the only place you can get a drink is mad local restaurants. With menu items like
Dried pot bullfrog Flavour of chicken feet Order food Trichosanguine [hairy blood??]
And
Smelly snails
This is quite possibly the most off putting menu in the history of rebarbartive menus. I love it
They don’t do gin and tonics
I’m torn. I can’t decide between ordering some smelly snails or ordering a nice tasty dish of “order food”
Reminds me of going to a tapas bar in Oslo once, with a menu in Spanish and Norwegian and basically guessing what we were ordering. Turns out I like catfish!
Turns out I LOVE their spicy shrimp. A huge tub of greasy chunky king prawns stir fried in garlic, chili, spring onions and spices and cleverly laid over tranches of fresh cucumber so the juices soaked into the crunchy cucumber. Mmmm
Only problem was that I accidentally ordered about half a ton (I think I went for a sharing dish by mistake)
But they happily put the leftovers in a takeaway box for tomorrows brunch
I could have gone to the hotel restaurant or any of the chain restaurants nearby but I went down backstreets and it was great. Also a lot of hookers
I would have liked this post, until you mentioned hookers.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
Maybe so, but we also had a huge helping hand from the efforts the Tories have gone to, with Brexit, Johnson and the rest, to alienate their historic Home Counties power base. Those seats mostly dropped into our lap as, despite the egregious spin from a certain ex-MP on this site, those folks were mostly never going to vote Labour.
If the Tories sort themselves out, most of those seats will just as easily be lost, regardless of how clever the LibDems think their targeting might be.
The sweet spot for the LibDems arises if the Tories and Reform both think that chasing after the Trumpite ‘deplorable’ vote is their destiny, and the shine comes off Labour after a term in office.
Back on topic, I’ve been lucky as a LibDem to have fought eight elections during my lifetime, and won all but the first one. To win, you really do have to give it your all, over a number of years, which does involve some sacrifice. It’s a legitimate question, particularly with our country’s emasculated local government, whether it’s really worth it. Nevertheless without people like you and me, our democracy and country would be very much the poorer.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
You jest, but actually pretty plausible given Ukraine has the materials needed to make the nukes, and Poland has the will.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
One of the problematic aspects of the sequence of events is that, as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Britain would be obliged to tell Poland and Ukraine that they're really quite cross.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
You jest, but actually pretty plausible given Ukraine has the materials needed to make the nukes, and Poland has the will.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
One of the problematic aspects of the sequence of events is that, as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Britain would be obliged to tell Poland and Ukraine that they're really quite cross.
We could attach the note saying “Naughty!” to the side of a shipment of Storm Shadow missiles.
This would save the cost of a stamp. Waste not, want not.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.
That's a good question, Horse. Let me offer a few thoughts, which I hope are helpful. I detest the word "therapy"; it's nebulous, ill-defined and empty - whilst an important thing about counselling (the word I will use) is about recognising an issue, naming it, taking responsibility for it, and thinking carefully about requirements and best approaches.
I started with counselling as a volunteer on my University Nightline, where we were all under 22 so had little experience and no qualifications, and were limited in role to helping people explore the different aspects of their own worries and concerns as they paused to think.
At one end counselling is going out for a walk or a pub lunch with a friend to get a different perspective. At the other it is a specialist professional service timetabled and planned. In between there could be "life coaching". And it can tip over into medical things if there are medical causes eg chemical imbalances causing depression or eg SAD.
Two examples. My family (my dad + children) had Consultant Level genetic counselling around whether to test for a genetic condition where if you have it your mind starts disintegrating from around the age of 40. There is a 50:50 pass on to kids probability. So decisions affected will include "if I have it will I want to have children who will then have the same decision", or "do I choose not to have children" or "do I not test, which means my children will each have a 50% chance of having it", "do I want to have the knowledge that my mind will go, or would I rather not know from not to then that it will / will not happen and get the intermediate years without the possible looming prospect?". Big questions so need big, expert input.
I also had a long "3rd party view form a friend" phone call when I though I was being manipulated / bullied around a family will settlement. I think I was, but the 3rd party view help me understand what I had done that could have led to that being done as a tactic, so helped me focus on the core underlying issue not the one I was looking at.
I've always taken care to have friend available who on request will give me the time to talk about things that concern me, and to whom I give permission to say the normally unacceptable. Why I do that is a different story around me not wanting to be programmed by cultural norms - for another day.
Second part:
IMO key points I find helpful are:
1 - The person in therapy owns the process. It need a projected start and finish. 2 - Describe the concern, say described on one sheet of A4 paper, and summarised in one para, and including criteria to tell "this is dealt with as far as I can see". Just doing this may be enough to make a difference. 3 - If counselling/ therapy is appropriate, identify what sort, who, what the brief is, and what the goals / "this is finished" criteria are - which are the triggers for the process to end or pause. 4 - It's not just about talking, but about doing and habits as well which have an impact. Body / environment matters as well as what is inside our heads. Stop something. Start something else. Get a dog. Start hiking. Take up bowls. Go to evensong for some silence and soothing music / ritual. Move house. Join a rock group. Do amdram. Volunteer at the food bank. Get a girlfriend or boyfriend. 5 - Keep it time limited for review, and "is this worth continuing".
Repeat as appropriate, but keep ownership / agency. Have a 3rd party eg friend who is in the loop, who you allow to say "perhaps it's time you stopped now."
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
I suppose the questions that you really need to ask are:
1. What are you hoping to achieve by being elected to office? 2. Can you achieve those things if you are elected to the post you are standing for 3. Can you achieve those things anyway without being elected, in which case is the election process rather wasting some of your precious time (everyone's time is precious as we only have a very limitd amount of it)
Having chatted with you for many years I am pretty sure you know this and know the answers, hence the reason you still stand. But I do get the impression that many politicians - especially those in the higher tiers of administration, actually don't know the answers and are seeking position and some limited power for its own sake rather than because they have a clear idea of what they want to achieve.
A former mayor and local minor politician in Newark has been in and out of politics for decades. He is nominally 'Labour' but is actually 'Newark' to his core. The amount he has achieved for the town and for its people - at least ona local scale - has been immense and most of it was doen whilst he was out of office. Being elected mayor was simply a route to publicise, promote and further the many causes he was pursuing and he used it to great effect. Even his political opponents recognise that he has done all he has done for the very best of reasons and as a result he has become a real Newark treasure.
There is another councillor on the Tory side of the divide who, whilst more successful politically and being more of a recognisable politician at District and County level is doing similar things for the causes he believes are important. Little of what he does within elected positions relates to those causes and he could probably still achieve as much without being elected but it does give him a position from which to make his voice heard.
Both men deserve great praise for what they do but very little of it needed public office.
I suspect a lot of people get involved at council level then can't commit the time needed to be effective.
I would be interested if any other PBers have gone to therapy and how they found it.
That's a good question, Horse. Let me offer a few thoughts, which I hope are helpful. I detest the word "therapy"; it's nebulous, ill-defined and empty - whilst an important thing about counselling (the word I will use) is about recognising an issue, naming it, taking responsibility for it, and thinking carefully about requirements and best approaches.
I started with counselling as a volunteer on my University Nightline, where we were all under 22 so had little experience and no qualifications, and were limited in role to helping people explore the different aspects of their own worries and concerns as they paused to think.
At one end counselling is going out for a walk or a pub lunch with a friend to get a different perspective. At the other it is a specialist professional service timetabled and planned. In between there could be "life coaching". And it can tip over into medical things if there are medical causes eg chemical imbalances causing depression or eg SAD.
Two examples. My family (my dad + children) had Consultant Level genetic counselling around whether to test for a genetic condition where if you have it your mind starts disintegrating from around the age of 40. There is a 50:50 pass on to kids probability. So decisions affected will include "if I have it will I want to have children who will then have the same decision", or "do I choose not to have children" or "do I not test, which means my children will each have a 50% chance of having it", "do I want to have the knowledge that my mind will go, or would I rather not know from not to then that it will / will not happen and get the intermediate years without the possible looming prospect?". Big questions so need big, expert input.
I also had a long "3rd party view form a friend" phone call when I though I was being manipulated / bullied around a family will settlement. I think I was, but the 3rd party view help me understand what I had done that could have led to that being done as a tactic, so helped me focus on the core underlying issue not the one I was looking at.
I've always taken care to have friend available who on request will give me the time to talk about things that concern me, and to whom I give permission to say the normally unacceptable. Why I do that is a different story around me not wanting to be programmed by cultural norms - for another day.
Second part:
IMO key points I find helpful are:
1 - The person in therapy owns the process. It need a projected start and finish. 2 - Describe the concern, say described on one sheet of A4 paper, and summarised in one para, and including criteria to tell "this is dealt with as far as I can see". Just doing this may be enough to make a difference. 3 - If counselling/ therapy is appropriate, identify what sort, who, what the brief is, and what the goals / "this is finished" criteria are - which are the triggers for the process to end or pause. 4 - It's not just about talking, but about doing and habits as well which have an impact. Body / environment matters as well as what is inside our heads. Stop something. Start something else. Get a dog. Start hiking. Take up bowls. Go to evensong for some silence and soothing music / ritual. Move house. Join a rock group. Do amdram. Volunteer at the food bank. Get a girlfriend or boyfriend. 5 - Keep it time limited for review, and "is this worth continuing".
Repeat as appropriate, but keep ownership / agency. Have a 3rd party eg friend who is in the loop, who you allow to say "perhaps it's time you stopped now."
HTH
This is some properly sound advice.
One thing I'd add is the importance of flexibility. After the death of my partner I timeboxed a year for therapy, on the basis that 'I really needed to commit to it'. Six months in I knew I'd had enough, but wanted to hold myself to my promise of a full year. It was a complete waste of time and money. But I kept telling myself, against my better instincts, 'you need to keep going'.
So I'd add to your advice, trust your gut. They say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, that it gets gripping towards the end etc, but to paraphrase Will Self, 'if a book's bad in the first thirty pages, it won't turn into war and peace by the end, put it down'.
It can be quite easy to fall into the trap of thinking you *need* ongoing therapy, when what you really need is more of MattW's point 4 - a change of routine, and so on. And your therapist will gladly keep you going as it's in their financial interest. In retrospect, I actually think therapy *slowed* my healing process because it wasn't in the therapist's interest for me to get better or reach a conclusion. However, YMMV as always.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
We should make him Groom of the Stool, and tell him it is a great honour.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
Why not a special tartan to go with it? And perhaps his own locker at St Andrews.
I just watched Trump's all out war on the cartels speech. This is why Americans voted for him, fundamentally he's pledging to keep them safe in a way that Kamala would never have done.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Reminds me of a case in Peterhead when a trawler using illegal fishing gear had been chased around the north of Scotland and eventually impounded. The defence was that the Captain had been asleep and had not heard the horn of the pursuing vessel. The court was only about 2 miles from the harbour and the Procurator fiscal managed to set up the timing so that he could ask, "do you mean this horn?" as all the windows in the town and court room rattled. The trial ended shortly thereafter.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
Haven't we gone for Boxer for our SPG capability? Archer looks dead impressive but AFAIK we have just got some to backfill for the AS80s we sent to Ukraine
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
Why not a special tartan to go with it? And perhaps his own locker at St Andrews.
Yes, and the Royal Mint could issue a special commemorative coin.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Too many people seem to have considered that in the Ukraine war there is a binary choice. Either Ukraine wins by reclaiming all its sovereign territory by force or there is a negotiated settlement where Russia gets to keep the territories it currently occupies in order for there to be peace. But a negotiated settlement covers a whole array of options. Does it mean a formal and legally recognised transfer of sovereign territory? Or does it just mean a freeze in fighting for those decisions to be taken at a later date?
And what about sanctions? If we accept that the Ukraine 'victory plan' is done with having not given them enough support and the most impactful weapons needed then the next best thing is a negotiated settlement in their favour. That means no formal transfer of sovereignty and no sanctions relief for Russia. Would it work? I don't know but if you aren't prepared to be tough in negotiations don't bother trying to negotiate.
With regards to your point about being tough in negotiations, I agree: If Trump threatens to cut off funding for Ukraine, leading to a Korean style frozen conflict over current borders, European countries should collectively say ok then, we will supply Ukraine with nukes to ensure Russia goes no further.
Let's see how Trump likes that one.
With these people you have to play hardball.
The likely response to the peace you outline, who be a frenetic effort to reestablish Russian gas sales in Europe. Not to give the Ukrainians nuclear weapons.
I was wondering, just yesterday about Aldermaston cooking up a nice, low maintenance nuclear weapon. 120kt, HEU core, no boosting. Get the high yield from a big, hollow core with core levitation, plus high efficiency compression. Think two point implosion.
HEU and no boosting means you could have a ten year shelf life - no maintenance.
As a supersize-me offer, a two stage *fission* weapon - use the primary to compress a fission only secondary. That way you could get to 500kt with a safe design. Again, no maintenance required.
I reckon it would sell like hotcakes in Eastern Europe. Put British exports back at the top.
I don't think Ukraine is actually going to go nuclear (given their reliance on support from other nations), but I do think Poland will.
Whatever the "final result" of the Special Military Operation, the result will be nuclear proliferation. Ukraine has demonstrated what happens when you give up your nukes, and the rest of Eastern Europe is taking notes.
1) Ukraine transfers a portion of the spent nuclear fuel from the cooling ponds around its reactors to Poland. For say keeping.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
You jest, but actually pretty plausible given Ukraine has the materials needed to make the nukes, and Poland has the will.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
One of the problematic aspects of the sequence of events is that, as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, Britain would be obliged to tell Poland and Ukraine that they're really quite cross.
We could attach the note saying “Naughty!” to the side of a shipment of Storm Shadow missiles.
This would save the cost of a stamp. Waste not, want not.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
With his own tartan. Although, one based around orange might not look great....
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Reminds me of a case in Peterhead when a trawler using illegal fishing gear had been chased around the north of Scotland and eventually impounded. The defence was that the Captain had been asleep and had not heard the horn of the pursuing vessel. The court was only about 2 miles from the harbour and the Procurator fiscal managed to set up the timing so that he could ask, "do you mean this horn?" as all the windows in the town and court room rattled. The trial ended shortly thereafter.
In 2003 a dredger put a big hole through Hythe Pier in Southampton Water. The person in control was (ahem) slightly the worse for alcohol.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
Why not a special tartan to go with it? And perhaps his own locker at St Andrews.
Yes, and the Royal Mint could issue a special commemorative coin.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
Haven't we gone for Boxer for our SPG capability? Archer looks dead impressive but AFAIK we have just got some to backfill for the AS80s we sent to Ukraine
Either. Just buy in real quality - a hundred systems is a joke.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Used to do that regularly to DuraAce's posts. Full of jargon, humour, anger and TLAs.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
When I went to Tristan da Cunha, there was an 80,000 tonnes bulk carrier going from Brazil to South Africa that had smashed into nearby Nightingale Island and sank. The suggestion was they didn't think there was anything other than empty ocean until their destination.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
Why not a special tartan to go with it? And perhaps his own locker at St Andrews.
Yes, and the Royal Mint could issue a special commemorative coin.
We’ve been clearing out my mother’s flat, and she bought a stack of commemorative crowns for Charles and Diana, the Silver Jubilee, and Britain’s accession to the EU (the latter I must photo and post here just to wind up our Casino). I wonder if they are worth anything, or does every family have some?
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
You could call it Able Archer for short.
That would be the version with the tactical nuclear weapons.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
Haven't we gone for Boxer for our SPG capability? Archer looks dead impressive but AFAIK we have just got some to backfill for the AS80s we sent to Ukraine
Either. Just buy in real quality - a hundred systems is a joke.
Probably not enough to last more than about 3 days on a real battlefield. That, along with drones making everything else redundant, is probably the key message of the Ukraine war. Modern warfare systems require insane quantities of ammunition and logistics.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Reform didn’t even bother campaigning in my seat and got 25% of the vote and within a shit at labour next time out. Labour really did campaign and got 37%.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Reminds me of a case in Peterhead when a trawler using illegal fishing gear had been chased around the north of Scotland and eventually impounded. The defence was that the Captain had been asleep and had not heard the horn of the pursuing vessel. The court was only about 2 miles from the harbour and the Procurator fiscal managed to set up the timing so that he could ask, "do you mean this horn?" as all the windows in the town and court room rattled. The trial ended shortly thereafter.
In 2003 a dredger put a big hole through Hythe Pier in Southampton Water. The person in control was (ahem) slightly the worse for alcohol.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Reminds me of a case in Peterhead when a trawler using illegal fishing gear had been chased around the north of Scotland and eventually impounded. The defence was that the Captain had been asleep and had not heard the horn of the pursuing vessel. The court was only about 2 miles from the harbour and the Procurator fiscal managed to set up the timing so that he could ask, "do you mean this horn?" as all the windows in the town and court room rattled. The trial ended shortly thereafter.
In 2003 a dredger put a big hole through Hythe Pier in Southampton Water. The person in control was (ahem) slightly the worse for alcohol.
A rather inebriated local Dartmouth lady managed to get hold of one of the ferries across the River Dart. She spent an evening going up and down the river telling everyone who would listen that she was Captain Jack Sparrow....
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
Didn't May try to arrange a state visit almost immediately? The trouble with that kind of approach is it looks weak.
We didn't lay it on thick enough. We should offer Trump a title in the Scottish peerage and hold a big ceremony in his honour.
With his own tartan. Although, one based around orange might not look great....
Would go down a storm in some bits of Northern Ireland.
O2 Christmassy ad telling me that millions of UK households are living in ‘data poverty’, not heard that one before. Great that the marketing wankers are getting a turn out of poverty.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
I think that's quite good.
My initial thought is that Keir Starmer is perhaps quite well equipped to understand Trump. He has spent much of his career putting people like Trump - tax evaders, con-artists, racketeers, liars, sex abusers, racists, high volume thieves - behind bars for long stretches, so he should have a good handle on Trump's narcisstic, self-obsessed mindset.
He only has to deal with him because of the dysfunctional US legal system, which in any sane world would by now have Trump in a high-security prison, or a secure mental facility for the criminally insane, for the rest of his life.
He has to pursue a practise of Realism about Trump, combined with Realpolitik about dealing with Trump and the policies of Trump's USA. The questions are whether we are well-equipped to implement that in whatever circumstances arise.
It's arguably a careful double-minded, two-faced policy that we need. We will be supping with the devil, so we need a long spoon.
But Keir Starmer is a senior lawyer. Does he have the skillset?
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
I think that's quite good.
My initial thought is that Keir Starmer is perhaps quite well equipped to understand Trump. He has spent much of his career putting people like Trump - tax evaders, con-artists, racketeers, liars, sex abusers, racists, high volume thieves - behind bars for long stretches, so he should have a good handle on the Trump mindset.
He only has to deal with him because of the dysfunctional US legal system, which in any sane world would by now have Trump in a high-security prison, or a secure mental facility for the criminally insane, for the rest of his life.
He has to pursue a practise of Realism about Trump, combined with Realpolitik about dealing with Trump and the policies of Trump's USA.
It's arguably a careful double-minded, two-faced policy that we need. We will be supping with the devil, so we need a long spoon.
But Keir Starmer is a senior lawyer. Does he have the skillset?
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
I worked with an ex-LNG tanker captain. He used to watch on the radar when he announced on the radio that 100 kilotons of fun was coming through.
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Reform didn’t even bother campaigning in my seat and got 25% of the vote and within a shit at labour next time out. Labour really did campaign and got 37%.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Reform didn’t even bother campaigning in my seat and got 25% of the vote and within a shit at labour next time out. Labour really did campaign and got 37%.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
I think that's quite good.
My initial thought is that Keir Starmer is perhaps quite well equipped to understand Trump. He has spent much of his career putting people like Trump - tax evaders, con-artists, racketeers, liars, sex abusers, racists, high volume thieves - behind bars for long stretches, so he should have a good handle on Trump's narcisstic, self-obsessed mindset.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
You need to be within about 20 miles to be threaten by artillery. It’s about having a reserve so that when send them to Eastern Europe, Putin shits his pants.
EDIT: we could specify that the truck bodies for this are electric. So eco-friendly mass death. Plus we would have a huge capability to build electric trucks.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
I thought the army didn't like it because it was on wheels, not tracks.
It's also made by BAE, and is quite quick. It stops, fires 3 rounds within 50 seconds, and takes off again before the first one lands.
Richard - there is no such thing as a general election in terms of all votes being counted together. A General Election isn’t one election, it is 650 held simultaneously. How many votes are tallied across 650 is irrelevant under FPTP. All that matters is how many votes are given in any given constituency.
How did we win so many seats? By recognising this reality and playing the rules. Seeking to gain the maximum number of votes in specific constituencies. Reform don’t do that. So they don’t win.
I am not arguing in favur of Reform at all. What I am pointing out is that it is possible there is a mistaken cause and effect being ascribed here.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
Reform didn’t even bother campaigning in my seat and got 25% of the vote and within a shit at labour next time out. Labour really did campaign and got 37%.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
I worked with an ex-LNG tanker captain. He used to watch on the radar when he announced on the radio that 100 kilotons of fun was coming through.
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
More or less did a bit on how long it takes to turn around and oil tanker because it is used as a term for something that takes a long time to do. Apparently it is just 3 minutes. So next time someone uses that saying you can reply 'That quick eh?'
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
You need to be within about 20 miles to be threaten by artillery. It’s about having a reserve so that when send them to Eastern Europe, Putin shits his pants.
Yep it's not just Trump. Putin also needs facing up to. And Xi for that matter. The world's three biggest arsenals (inc nuclear) in the hands of Authoritarian Nationalistic Strongmen. Perilous times.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Used to do that regularly to DuraAce's posts. Full of jargon, humour, anger and TLAs.
...and as I did for our missing comrade, I must also translate. So let's do that
"Artillery" is a way of throwing bombs over, say, 30 miles, at a target. Often troops/vehicles, but most effectively at buildings because they don't move. Given sufficient time and shells, artillery can force a city to surrender and this has happened in Ukraine.
To combat this, your opponent must kill your artillery. To do that, they have to find them and throw bombs at them back. So having artillery that moves is great. Two specific ones have been mentioned
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
I thought the army didn't like it because it was on wheels, not tracks.
It's also made by BAE, and is quite quick. It stops, fires 3 rounds within 50 seconds, and takes off again before the first one lands.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
When I went to Tristan da Cunha, there was an 80,000 tonnes bulk carrier going from Brazil to South Africa that had smashed into nearby Nightingale Island and sank. The suggestion was they didn't think there was anything other than empty ocean until their destination.
Ooops.
That reminds me of the drunk chap who drove his lorry into the most isolated tree in the world.
There are two ships I can see, about twenty miles out to sea, from the window, neither of which appear on the ship locator apps. What’s that all about?
Utter fucking idiots on the ships?
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
Happened to us on the Byford Dolphin drilling rig about 20 years ago. Drilling in the Norwegian North Sea and we were all called to muster as a freight ship was steaming directly towards us and failing to answer any hails. They scrambled choppers to get us all off whilst the Norwegian navy sent out a chopper and landed a team on the vessel. They diverted it (it was inside our 500m exclusion zone by then and too late to stop it but as it turned out it would have just missed us by a few metres) and afterwards found the crew all asleep. They had failed to check the updated navigation hazards and didn't realise there was a mobile drilling unit right on their course.
I worked with an ex-LNG tanker captain. He used to watch on the radar when he announced on the radio that 100 kilotons of fun was coming through.
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
More or less did a bit on how long it takes to turn around and oil tanker because it is used as a term for something that takes a long time to do. Apparently it is just 3 minutes. So next time someone uses that saying you can reply 'That quick eh?'
Plus turning isn’t like turning in a car. The ship kind of slides sideways while turning…
One ex-tanker captain in the company was said to have put the wheel over, hard, as a response to an Iranian speedboat threatening his ship during the Tanker War in the 80s. Slammed into them sideways, at 15 knots, so they said….
Norwegian bloke. Had done the Murmansk convoys as a boy, according to company folklore.
So this morning there was discussion on the spend on child care compared to pets and I commented on vets bills that you don't have with children and our dog eats everything causing numerous visits to the vet. This morning he disappeared into the woods. This is often the sign that he has found a carcass. This afternoon he started wobbling and was lethargic. So emergency vet, made to vomit, will be an overnight stay and an estimated bill of £1200 to £1500. And that is assuming that is it. Hopefully it is. Not because of the money (we are insured) but we don't want it to be something serious.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
I thought the army didn't like it because it was on wheels, not tracks.
It's also made by BAE, and is quite quick. It stops, fires 3 rounds within 50 seconds, and takes off again before the first one lands.
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
We should keep our distance/dignity.
Unfortunately our militaries and security services are so closely entwined and we benefit so much from the American alliance that keeping our distance just isn't realistic.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
Yes of course - what I mean is don't chase attention/approval from him.
£22 billion would buy 2,100 Archer artillery systems.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems. - As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK. - It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I've risked a "like" despite having no clue what you're talking about.
Archer is an automated artillery system - a 155mm gun on a huge, off road truck. It does nearly everything at the touch of a button. Including loading more ammunition
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Ah ok. Excellent. That would certainly give America something to think about. Stop them getting any funny ideas.
I thought the army didn't like it because it was on wheels, not tracks.
It's also made by BAE, and is quite quick. It stops, fires 3 rounds within 50 seconds, and takes off again before the first one lands.
Comments
See, especially the interview with a chap running a job club/community centre for 16+ trying to get out of the deprivation cycle.
Religion isn’t mentioned in the piece at all, incidentally.
2) In one of those regrettable accidents, the Poles drop all the rods in oxcalic acid, precipitate plutonium, accidentally refine it and cast it into cores. Due to a misunderstanding during the clean up from the above accident, someone mistakenly installs the cores in implosion systems. Just one of those things - someone typed 234/A/37B on the form instead of 234/A/37A…
3) An upset Ukraine makes it clear that it hold Poland responsible for such mistakes. As an apology, the Poles give them half of the nuclear weapons they accidentally made.
As for being reliant on other countries, well it's clear those countries they can rely on may be disappearing.
Put another way, long odds, but if there were a market up I wouldn't actually bet against it happening.
Economics lesson 0.1- if I buy a can of coke every morning for 99p and sell it every evening for £1, In a year I am making 1% profit on turnover, but 365% profit on capital.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more votes? I don't know but given that Reform didn't do that as much as the Lb Dems and still got hundreds of thousands more votes I would say the evidence is poor at best.
Does knocking on doors and posting leaflets get you more seats? Again I don't know. If it is not geting you more votes then I am hard pressed to see how it gets you more votes.
But the Lib Dems did get vastly more seats than Reform in spite of getting fewer votes. So if you want to replicate that then you need to look at why that is and on the evidence I am not convinced by the current arguments.
The PB audience as a group usually isn’t the latter and is more informed over the ordinary twitter person.
It doesn’t wash with us.
The engineering is fairly simple. With the advent of basic computers in the 1960, implosion went from exotic to trivial to design. Especially the 2 point designs, which have zero probability of creating “jets” at the interfaces - because no interfaces. Combined with flying plate designs, you can get light, compact, reliable and efficient in a bag. See the collapse in size of warheads, that made Polaris and Minuteman instantly winning solutions.
Another interesting one would be if Putin happened to be assassinated. Russia is very much all revolving around one single lynchpin, as is the USA now. Without Putin, what would change in Russia, and how?
Turns out I like catfish!
Those surprise results we see now and then don’t come from nowhere.
Five sets of leaflets, the blue hand written letter, the “it’s election day tomorrow”, “vote for the local candidate”, and it matters not if the claims are untrue, the “Only we can beat the con/lab/snp here” when fifth place last time, puts out the impression of someone really hungry for the vote.
This works effectively when the incumbent party just go through the motions.
We weren’t even allowed to debate why we were all dying
The dems are as bad the GOP just more hypocritical
What about his mate Putin? Oh hang on a minute he's got rather cozy with the Ayatollahs.
That skews results, when people vote for their desired outcome (or against their least desired) in particular constituencies.
How quickly Reform can adapt to that - particularly against a refreshed Tory offering - is an open question. (FWIW, I’d guess not all that quickly, but that’s only a guess.)
Under PR, we’d be looking at very different results, probably along with very different party vote totals, though.
But this isn’t normal, it’s not moral, it’s not ok for any modern military to execute prisoners.
This is who Ukraine is fighting...
https://x.com/prestonstew_/status/1855323359430451458
…and being urged to hand over millions of its citizens to.
Starting an intensive campaign only when the election is called will increase your vote but( usually) is not enough to tip the seat.
And in general, the media need the clickbait of the contrast between two extreme views , so centrist views get silenced. Which is why Ed Davey had to resort to bungee jumping to get attention.
Only problem was that I accidentally ordered about half a ton (I think I went for a sharing dish by mistake)
But they happily put the leftovers in a takeaway box for tomorrows brunch
I could have gone to the hotel restaurant or any of the chain restaurants nearby but I went down backstreets and it was great. Also a lot of hookers
I see no evidence (looking from the outside) that they have really got to grips with party organisation and indeed such organisation may actually be anathema to many of their supporters and members. They will continue to survive on popular vote but I don't see them getting far past that stage.
If Daniel Lurie *actually* accomplishes this, he will have my vote, my money, and my appreciation for the next cycle. It could be the only thing he does and it would have a deep impact on the city.
Shut down the open-air drug markets and reclaim our city.
https://x.com/Suhail/status/1855266538988929438
We have been half a dozen times. Could never get in the pub 😢
The talk from the dentist was fascinating. Especially how expensive the pain killers were so people didn’t bother and just had the treatment
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14064345/sunny-weather-relationships-uk-winter.html
Attention all space cadets..
The foundations of transatlantic relations frequently shuddered during the first Trump term. Britain’s defence and foreign policy establishments are seized with a justifiably deep apprehension that the world will become an even more dangerous place during the sequel.
Some Labour MPs mutter that Sir Keir is fooling himself if he really thinks he can win the ear of the other man. The concern is that this will be a fruitless pursuit that will earn only embarrassing rebuffs. Theresa May’s slavish attempts to woo the American were rewarded with insults and humiliations – and she was a Conservative prime minister. The better response to his return to the Oval Office, it is argued by some Labour voices, is to start from the assumption that the US will be an extremely unreliable ally and put more urgency into repairing relations with our European neighbours.
Tories who think that apeing Trumpism is the way forward should note that a majority of their supporters are among those perturbed by his return.
From tariffs to defence spending, the best minds the British government can muster are trying to guess which elements of the Trump platform should be treated as deadly serious, which are an opening bargaining position by a man who is hyper-transactional and which were just “campaign talk”.
Hope for the best is not a strategy. Prepare for the worst will be prudent. If Donald Trump does only half the things he has said he will do, Sir Keir will find this a very perilous dance. Trying to hug close to the American is like attempting the tango with a crack-smoking rhinoceros. The prime minister will be lucky if he endures the experience without getting gored.
If the Tories sort themselves out, most of those seats will just as easily be lost, regardless of how clever the LibDems think their targeting might be.
The sweet spot for the LibDems arises if the Tories and Reform both think that chasing after the Trumpite ‘deplorable’ vote is their destiny, and the shine comes off Labour after a term in office.
Back on topic, I’ve been lucky as a LibDem to have fought eight elections during my lifetime, and won all but the first one. To win, you really do have to give it your all, over a number of years, which does involve some sacrifice. It’s a legitimate question, particularly with our country’s emasculated local government, whether it’s really worth it. Nevertheless without people like you and me, our democracy and country would be very much the poorer.
This would save the cost of a stamp. Waste not, want not.
We should cooperate with Trump, and try to steer him as much as we can, while privately holding our nose as we do so. It's undignified at best and a wild ride at worst, but we have no realistic choice, as even idiots like Lammy realise. And occasionally he's even right, as with burden-sharing within NATO.
IMO key points I find helpful are:
1 - The person in therapy owns the process. It need a projected start and finish.
2 - Describe the concern, say described on one sheet of A4 paper, and summarised in one para, and including criteria to tell "this is dealt with as far as I can see". Just doing this may be enough to make a difference.
3 - If counselling/ therapy is appropriate, identify what sort, who, what the brief is, and what the goals / "this is finished" criteria are - which are the triggers for the process to end or pause.
4 - It's not just about talking, but about doing and habits as well which have an impact. Body / environment matters as well as what is inside our heads. Stop something. Start something else. Get a dog. Start hiking. Take up bowls. Go to evensong for some silence and soothing music / ritual. Move house. Join a rock group. Do amdram. Volunteer at the food bank. Get a girlfriend or boyfriend.
5 - Keep it time limited for review, and "is this worth continuing".
Repeat as appropriate, but keep ownership / agency. Have a 3rd party eg friend who is in the loop, who you allow to say "perhaps it's time you stopped now."
HTH
There's also Taal volcano a couple of hours south where you can hit golf balls into the crater if that appeals.
See the accounts of coast guards from various nations boarding ships that were unresponsive to hails. And discovering that the entire crew was asleep. The ship on autopilot.
This has occurred in the Channel…
One thing I'd add is the importance of flexibility. After the death of my partner I timeboxed a year for therapy, on the basis that 'I really needed to commit to it'. Six months in I knew I'd had enough, but wanted to hold myself to my promise of a full year. It was a complete waste of time and money. But I kept telling myself, against my better instincts, 'you need to keep going'.
So I'd add to your advice, trust your gut. They say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, that it gets gripping towards the end etc, but to paraphrase Will Self, 'if a book's bad in the first thirty pages, it won't turn into war and peace by the end, put it down'.
It can be quite easy to fall into the trap of thinking you *need* ongoing therapy, when what you really need is more of MattW's point 4 - a change of routine, and so on. And your therapist will gladly keep you going as it's in their financial interest. In retrospect, I actually think therapy *slowed* my healing process because it wasn't in the therapist's interest for me to get better or reach a conclusion. However, YMMV as always.
This would -
- given us, in the words of the contemporaries of Henry VIII, enough cannon to conquer Hell
- As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would get a discount. So we would get 3000 systems.
- As a result of such a staggeringly large order, we would be able to demand that the new factories for building them would be built in the UK.
- It could be sold under the Equalities act. Some years ago, a rather stupid MP asked why there was a strength test in the artillery units. Archer is nearly completed automated - including reloading.
I hope you move to acceptance on the grief cycle soon
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c70cce5274a42900000d3/Donald_Redford.pdf
Ooops.
It is particularly good at shoot-and-scoot. Stop, fire its load of ammo at pre planned targets then leave. In a couple of minutes.
2000 of those would be more artillery than the result of Europe combined. It’s the kind of capability that would make enemies shit their pants.,
Great that the marketing wankers are getting a turn out of poverty.
My initial thought is that Keir Starmer is perhaps quite well equipped to understand Trump. He has spent much of his career putting people like Trump - tax evaders, con-artists, racketeers, liars, sex abusers, racists, high volume thieves - behind bars for long stretches, so he should have a good handle on Trump's narcisstic, self-obsessed mindset.
He only has to deal with him because of the dysfunctional US legal system, which in any sane world would by now have Trump in a high-security prison, or a secure mental facility for the criminally insane, for the rest of his life.
He has to pursue a practise of Realism about Trump, combined with Realpolitik about dealing with Trump and the policies of Trump's USA. The questions are whether we are well-equipped to implement that in whatever circumstances arise.
It's arguably a careful double-minded, two-faced policy that we need. We will be supping with the devil, so we need a long spoon.
But Keir Starmer is a senior lawyer. Does he have the skillset?
He said it was remarkable how everyone woke up and got out of the way.
EDIT: we could specify that the truck bodies for this are electric. So eco-friendly mass death. Plus we would have a huge capability to build electric trucks.
It's also made by BAE, and is quite quick. It stops, fires 3 rounds within 50 seconds, and takes off again before the first one lands.
It's not that huge - only 15 tonnes and 6 wheels.
Two minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8x8ITwd4Vg
"Artillery" is a way of throwing bombs over, say, 30 miles, at a target. Often troops/vehicles, but most effectively at buildings because they don't move. Given sufficient time and shells, artillery can force a city to surrender and this has happened in Ukraine.
To combat this, your opponent must kill your artillery. To do that, they have to find them and throw bombs at them back. So having artillery that moves is great. Two specific ones have been mentioned
- Archer. A big gun bolted on the back of a lorry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxijbQ0iASE
- Boxer RCH 155. A big gun bolted on the back of an armoured vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJCRu1MSfH0
Boxer is better because it can shoot while moving. Both are wheeled not tracked, which is cheaper but limits their mobilityhttps://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2013-04-29/tree-of-tenere-niger-africa-maphead-ken-jennings
One ex-tanker captain in the company was said to have put the wheel over, hard, as a response to an Iranian speedboat threatening his ship during the Tanker War in the 80s. Slammed into them sideways, at 15 knots, so they said….
Norwegian bloke. Had done the Murmansk convoys as a boy, according to company folklore.