F1: after having unbrilliantly forgotten to take account of qualifying bets in 2022, I've finished (mostly accurately, hard to say if hedges come off always) putting together the results for that season.
Hedged was a profit of £84.71 (assuming £10 stakes per bet), unhedged was a tenner less.
Not amazing, but good to be positive.
This year is set to be similar or better unhedged, and lower hedged. However, this year, until recently, has seen awful luck (that 29 on Piastri in the UK still irks me, and £20 was lost just between when I placed a bet on Verstappen and was ready to post the blog).
Edited extra bit: odd season, btw, because despite having way fewer bets I made more on qualifying than races.
Did I hear you say that you’re green on both McLaren and Ferrari for the Constructors’ Championship?
I decided to go to the last race once I realised it wasn’t going to be a foregone conclusion months ago in favour of Red Bull, only to discover that tens of thousands of people took the decision before me, and there were no tickets left except for some very expensive hospitality, so will be watching on TV alongside everyone else on Sunday afternoon!
Yes, more on Ferrari than McLaren. I initially backed McLaren at 4.1, then Ferrari at 9.5. recently (for a small sum) laid McLaren at 1.21 but that's likely to have been a misstep.
Bad luck with Abu Dhabi. On the plus side, no risk of encountering James Corden (I forget which of Vettel's titles it was, but one of them won there had him interviewed with that bloated prick being a dick in the background).
Congratulations on your betting - and wow, another reply!
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
I'm fairly old and I certainly think "let’s not ruin it for the young again" by closing schools etc.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
I am not supporting Iran or Russia, I am just not as naive as you in that I recognise that whatever replaced Assad would be far worse and likely be an Islamist militant terrorist supporting regime
F1: after having unbrilliantly forgotten to take account of qualifying bets in 2022, I've finished (mostly accurately, hard to say if hedges come off always) putting together the results for that season.
Hedged was a profit of £84.71 (assuming £10 stakes per bet), unhedged was a tenner less.
Not amazing, but good to be positive.
This year is set to be similar or better unhedged, and lower hedged. However, this year, until recently, has seen awful luck (that 29 on Piastri in the UK still irks me, and £20 was lost just between when I placed a bet on Verstappen and was ready to post the blog).
Edited extra bit: odd season, btw, because despite having way fewer bets I made more on qualifying than races.
Did I hear you say that you’re green on both McLaren and Ferrari for the Constructors’ Championship?
I decided to go to the last race once I realised it wasn’t going to be a foregone conclusion months ago in favour of Red Bull, only to discover that tens of thousands of people took the decision before me, and there were no tickets left except for some very expensive hospitality, so will be watching on TV alongside everyone else on Sunday afternoon!
Yes, more on Ferrari than McLaren. I initially backed McLaren at 4.1, then Ferrari at 9.5. recently (for a small sum) laid McLaren at 1.21 but that's likely to have been a misstep.
Bad luck with Abu Dhabi. On the plus side, no risk of encountering James Corden (I forget which of Vettel's titles it was, but one of them won there had him interviewed with that bloated prick being a dick in the background).
Congratulations on your betting - and wow, another reply!
To be fair, until the last half dozen races, my race betting this year has been almost uniformly abysmal. I suppose that makes up for the very relaxing 2023, which might be the only full season I was ahead the entire time.
But yeah, the title stuff worked out nicely. Even finished mildly green on Norris (29 for the title then hedged to finish slightly ahead).
How much money does a political party need to operate? I'd argue there should be a limit to spending as well, just as there is at election time.
So we can say if they stand in (say) 600 of the 650 constituencies, then they must be able to raise the election spending limit (currently £54,010 ?) times the number of constituencies, as at present. If there are by-elections, the spending cap increases by £54,010 if they stand a candidate.
But a political party is not just about MPs and elections; there are a whole host of other centralised jobs that need doing. But how much should be budgeted for that? Again, I'd argue that should be an amount that scales on how many constituencies a party stood in at the last GE. To help smaller parties, this should be a minimum of (say) 20. So they can still raise some funds.
So the parties can raise money up to that total value, but no more. Having a maximum limit would IMO limit the ability for corruption in the system.
(This is a broad outline only)
The problem with using the last election as the basis for spending at the next election is that it builds in incumbency bias - not in terms of actual seats won of course but in terms of the most well established parties.
So, for example, a moderate centre right party grows over the next 4 years but finds that it is extremely limited in its funding possibilities compared to, for example, Reform or the Greens, because they stood in most constituencies at the previous election.
Yep, there will be problems with any system. But my broad question remains: how much does a political party actually need?
I think your basic calculations are sound but I would say that all parties should be treated equally and be given the same overall limits.
I see your point, but the problem there is that a small party that competes for a few seats in (say) Yorkshire would need far fewer staff, and have fewer expenses, than one that tries to cover the entire country.
I cannot see an easy middle ground though, unless parties state how many candidates they will stand at the next GE. Which will be hard four or five years in advance, or if a GE might be called at any time.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
I am not supporting Iran or Russia, I am just not as naive as you in that I recognise that whatever replaced Assad would be far worse and likely be an Islamist militant terrorist supporting regime
You are supporting Iran and Russia; you are literally spreading their propaganda! (Witness your 'Russia destroyed ISIS/L rubbish from the other day).
How much money does a political party need to operate? I'd argue there should be a limit to spending as well, just as there is at election time.
So we can say if they stand in (say) 600 of the 650 constituencies, then they must be able to raise the election spending limit (currently £54,010 ?) times the number of constituencies, as at present. If there are by-elections, the spending cap increases by £54,010 if they stand a candidate.
But a political party is not just about MPs and elections; there are a whole host of other centralised jobs that need doing. But how much should be budgeted for that? Again, I'd argue that should be an amount that scales on how many constituencies a party stood in at the last GE. To help smaller parties, this should be a minimum of (say) 20. So they can still raise some funds.
So the parties can raise money up to that total value, but no more. Having a maximum limit would IMO limit the ability for corruption in the system.
(This is a broad outline only)
The problem with using the last election as the basis for spending at the next election is that it builds in incumbency bias - not in terms of actual seats won of course but in terms of the most well established parties.
So, for example, a moderate centre right party grows over the next 4 years but finds that it is extremely limited in its funding possibilities compared to, for example, Reform or the Greens, because they stood in most constituencies at the previous election.
Yep, there will be problems with any system. But my broad question remains: how much does a political party actually need?
I think your basic calculations are sound but I would say that all parties should be treated equally and be given the same overall limits.
I see your point, but the problem there is that a small party that competes for a few seats in (say) Yorkshire would need far fewer staff, and have fewer expenses, than one that tries to cover the entire country.
I cannot see an easy middle ground though, unless parties state how many candidates they will stand at the next GE. Which will be hard four or five years in advance, or if a GE might be called at any time.
I suspect the structure of parties will change to maximise the state funding. Nominal candidates everywhere....
I also expect that dark money, think tanks etc will have a sudden boom. "We are not affiliated with any party. We are concerned with these issues. Well, there is a by-election, so we are presenting the voters with our take on the issues. By house to house leaflet drop."
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
I had kind of assumed that it was most likely the ships did originate in one of the Black Sea ports anyway since that is closest to the area of operations.
DONALD TRUMP AND RON DESANTIS have personally discussed the possibility of the Florida governor becoming the next secretary of defense amid concerns that sexual assault allegations could engulf the president-elect’s current nominee for the post, Pete Hegseth.
Bulwark email
Special Election for Florida Governor if that happens?
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
I am not supporting Iran or Russia, I am just not as naive as you in that I recognise that whatever replaced Assad would be far worse and likely be an Islamist militant terrorist supporting regime
In the short term at least the fall of Assad would be to our geopolitical benefit as it would diminish both Russia and Iran.
A lot would depend in the long term how "Islamist" the new regime would be. It would only harm us if it supported terrorism outside Syria, if it was merely fundamentalist then no worse than Saudi or the Gulf States who we often see as allies.
Bankers deserve all they get for their sloppy dress standards wiping out Savile Row. After the GFC (which started in America) bank staff were encouraged to remove their ties in order to confuse pitchfork-wielding mobs.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
I had kind of assumed that it was most likely the ships did originate in one of the Black Sea ports anyway since that is closest to the area of operations.
Possibly. But if they were, I might have expected Russia to send them home before now to help in the Back Sea, and replace them with vessels from other fleets.
I can see Russia having sent some vessels from (say) the Pacific fleet to Syria, as it means they have got more vessels in an area that is of mor geopolitical interest to them at the moment.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate" - arguable only by a complete shill. One who is forgiving of Assad's use of poison gas, bombing of hospitals and other such war crimes.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
It's a long sail with no friendly port nearby. Quite possibly break down, or perhaps have a Potempkin like mutiny. It's not as if the Russian Navy has a great track record.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
DONALD TRUMP AND RON DESANTIS have personally discussed the possibility of the Florida governor becoming the next secretary of defense amid concerns that sexual assault allegations could engulf the president-elect’s current nominee for the post, Pete Hegseth.
Bulwark email
Special Election for Florida Governor if that happens?
Ballotpedia appears to suggest that the first in line is the Lieutenant Governor, who is elected in a similar manner to the US Veep.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate" - arguable only by a complete shill. One who is forgiving of Assad's use of poison gas, bombing of hospitals and other such war crimes.
ISTR that there were posters on here who were adamant that Assad had not used poison gas. It'd be interesting to go back and see who they were...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
Assad's regime is not moderate.
It's a combination of weak, incompetent and completely amoral - to the extent he invited in the armed forces of two of the world's more noxious regimes (Russia and Iran) to maintain his otherwise crumbling regime. And was happy to have them conduct mass bombing and chemical warfare campaigns against his own civilians.
We have little idea who would take over if the regime fell. The opposition is a disparate bunch ranging from extreme islamists to democratic moderates. But the point is the regime is completely unable to sustain itself, whatever we do.
And the disaster has already been visited on the west. 20% of the entire population are refugees into Turkey and Europe - driven there by a Russian backed regime. That has already severely destabilised the entire EU.
You basically have ignored the history of the last decade and a half.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
It's a long sail with no friendly port nearby. Quite possibly break down, or perhaps have a Potempkin like mutiny. It's not as if the Russian Navy has a great track record.
All of this about the funding of political parties as a knee jerk reaction to Elon Musk talking about a large donation to Reform.
He has played a blinder here.
Really wound up people over here about it and wound up the Labour govt too. Top trolling.
He's just done the usual of spreading more shit. I wouldn't call that playing a blinder.
Capricious mega-billionaires throwing their weight around in the political arena isn't new, but it's not irrelevant; it's a hard problem. And it deserves thinking about.
We know what Musk's politics are, and he's been open about who and what he is looking at funding. That's a good deal less insidious than the kind of influence that leads to gushing Tweets about (and no doubt extremely lucrative infrastructure contracts for) Blackrock from our Government.
You are confusing lobbying with political donations. Musk is donating to a political party. Blackrock have successfully lobbied for infrastructure investment projects.
(I'm unable to find any sources on whether Blackrock has made political donations in the UK, but even if they do it's likely that they would be even-handed as they want to profit from government contracts regardless of the ruling party.)
Musk is looking to install his chosen political party as the government (presumably for profit), Blackrock are just looking to make profits from the government regardless of the party.
I'm sure you won't read below but ...
The UK requires significant investment in infrastructure. There is no appetite for that capital spending to be funded by tax increases or completely by increased Govt borrowing (a different discussion). So Labour looked to the financial institutions. Blackrock manage an enormous quantity of money which they need to invest to justify their fees, whether putting renewal of UK infrastructure in the hands of Blackrock is a good idea is debatable https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/the-blackrock-letters-inside-labours-close-partnership Govts have to be nice about commercial partners even if it's nauseating and until it all goes wrong.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate" - arguable only by a complete shill. One who is forgiving of Assad's use of poison gas, bombing of hospitals and other such war crimes.
Good morning everyone.
In a spirit of charity, I can see HYUFD's point. AFAIK the Assad regime doesn't lock up women for simply being women, as, for example, the Taliban do. And, again AFAIK, Hamas doesn't, either. However I think I'd use 'less extreme' rather than 'relatively moderate'.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
It's a long sail with no friendly port nearby. Quite possibly break down, or perhaps have a Potempkin like mutiny. It's not as if the Russian Navy has a great track record.
That’s a nice navy they’ve got there. Would be a real shame if anything were to happen to it…
Given how the rest of the Russian military is ‘working’ right now, a mutiny or a breakdown doesn’t sound too far fetched. Using golf buggies in place of armoured personnel carriers was probably a new low for their turning of soldiers into cannon fodder.
"Kherson’s civilians have been, since midsummer, the target of an experiment without precedent in modern European warfare: a concerted Russian campaign to empty a city by stalking its residents with attack drones.
The killer machines, sometimes by the swarm, hover above homes, buzz into buildings and chase people down streets in their cars, riding bicycles or simply on foot. The targets are not soldiers, or tanks, but civilian life...
Since mid-July, Kherson and its neighboring villages along the western side of the Dnipro river have suffered more than 9,500 attacks with small drones, killing at least 37 people and injuring hundreds more, according to Prokudin, regional prosecutors and police." https://x.com/RALee85/status/1864197164152365094
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They are another bunch of roasters , have more faces than the town clock, so who knows which way they will face.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate" - arguable only by a complete shill. One who is forgiving of Assad's use of poison gas, bombing of hospitals and other such war crimes.
Good morning everyone.
In a spirit of charity, I can see HYUFD's point. AFAIK the Assad regime doesn't lock up women for simply being women, as, for example, the Taliban do. And, again AFAIK, Hamas doesn't, either. However I think I'd use 'less extreme' rather than 'relatively moderate'.
At least with the Ukraine war, there’s clearly one side that’s mostly good people and one side that’s mostly bad people.
Most other current wars are not so simple, being mostly a bunch of scumbags that would make the world a better place if they all lost.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
It's a long sail with no friendly port nearby. Quite possibly break down, or perhaps have a Potempkin like mutiny. It's not as if the Russian Navy has a great track record.
Watch out for Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea….
Yes, I’m sure there will be some wriggle that unions are a lot of individuals but somehow corporations aren’t.
This has been an argument that has gone round and round. The trade off has always been capping corporations and individuals if you cap unions. Labour has always resisted.
Just to be clear this will MASSIVELY tilt the political battlefield in Labour’s favour. It’s far worse than ID requirements, redistricting or anything else that has been suggested over the years. I assume we will see a lot of posts from those who complained about ID condemning this proposal.
At least it stops faceless tax haven dodgy donations
How much money does a political party need to operate? I'd argue there should be a limit to spending as well, just as there is at election time.
So we can say if they stand in (say) 600 of the 650 constituencies, then they must be able to raise the election spending limit (currently £54,010 ?) times the number of constituencies, as at present. If there are by-elections, the spending cap increases by £54,010 if they stand a candidate.
But a political party is not just about MPs and elections; there are a whole host of other centralised jobs that need doing. But how much should be budgeted for that? Again, I'd argue that should be an amount that scales on how many constituencies a party stood in at the last GE. To help smaller parties, this should be a minimum of (say) 20. So they can still raise some funds.
So the parties can raise money up to that total value, but no more. Having a maximum limit would IMO limit the ability for corruption in the system.
(This is a broad outline only)
The problem with using the last election as the basis for spending at the next election is that it builds in incumbency bias - not in terms of actual seats won of course but in terms of the most well established parties.
So, for example, a moderate centre right party grows over the next 4 years but finds that it is extremely limited in its funding possibilities compared to, for example, Reform or the Greens, because they stood in most constituencies at the previous election.
Yep, there will be problems with any system. But my broad question remains: how much does a political party actually need?
plenty for all the grifters, hangers on , etc. Just like charities , majority it is just pay days for middle class twats and friends of politicians etc.
Meanwhile in the Real world... Uk most dam ing watchdog report on Boris and successive Tory Govt failures in Prison Service. 5 years over run 2028 to 2033 and 5 billion over budget
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They are another bunch of roasters , have more faces than the town clock, so who knows which way they will face.
Turkey doesn't want any fighting in the Black Sea, I suspect, for two reasons. One, it's got a very long coastline along said sea, and fighting is likely to have consequences for that coastline. Two, to get to and from warships have to pass through Istanbul and Turkey REALLY doesn't want the possibility of two or more hostile vessels doing so at the same time.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
"Kherson’s civilians have been, since midsummer, the target of an experiment without precedent in modern European warfare: a concerted Russian campaign to empty a city by stalking its residents with attack drones.
The killer machines, sometimes by the swarm, hover above homes, buzz into buildings and chase people down streets in their cars, riding bicycles or simply on foot. The targets are not soldiers, or tanks, but civilian life...
Since mid-July, Kherson and its neighboring villages along the western side of the Dnipro river have suffered more than 9,500 attacks with small drones, killing at least 37 people and injuring hundreds more, according to Prokudin, regional prosecutors and police." https://x.com/RALee85/status/1864197164152365094
That's horrific, and no doubt coming to a city nearer to us once Trump forces Ukraine to surrender to Russian aggression.
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
Whenever I'm feeling down (and boy there's plenty to be down about atm) I take comfort in the thought that great progressive changes can come about suddenly, with no prior indication they were even bubbling under. We have an example of such today. It's not reported on the Beeb, at least not yet, but we know it's happened because it's happened right here on PB. Morris Dancer has started to use the quote button.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
Erdogan is much of a muchness
May I remind you that I have to be careful when commenting on Turkish politics...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
Other than the torture, ethnic cleansing and chemical warfare (including nerve agent Sarin).
So moderate that a quarter of the population are refugees in Turkey, Lebanon etc
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
Meanwhile in the Real world... Uk most dam ing watchdog report on Boris and successive Tory Govt failures in Prison Service. 5 years over run 2028 to 2033 and 5 billion over budget
Massive Tory failure on law and order
This mornings press release from the Labour Party.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
Mrs C and I always have whatever vaccines are offered. Covid and flu particularly. We know SOMETHING is going to finish us off, and probably before too long but we've no desire to be gasping out our lives behind an oxygen mask.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
Do you seriously think that whatever regime replaces Assad will be any different?
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They are another bunch of roasters , have more faces than the town clock, so who knows which way they will face.
Turkey doesn't want any fighting in the Black Sea, I suspect, for two reasons. One, it's got a very long coastline along said sea, and fighting is likely to have consequences for that coastline. Two, to get to and from warships have to pass through Istanbul and Turkey REALLY doesn't want the possibility of two or more hostile vessels doing so at the same time.
The military clauses of the Montreux Convention were about two things - protecting civilian traffic and Turkish neutrality.
Previously, Turkey would have to pick sides. Which meant Turkey was, itself, a target in war.
The Convention meant that Turkey could be neutral, and also protected that status.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
Do you seriously think that whatever regime replaces Assad will be any different?
Well, they will obviously be different. Whether they are 'better' from our perspective is another matter.
There are many groups, and it is far from clear which, if any, will take over when the war is over - especially as the main groups are actually loose coalitions of smaller groups, often geographically, rather then ideologically, based.
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Kurds will grab a large portion of northeast Syria, which Turkey will immediately try to stop being a viable state. As for the rest: I've little idea, and it could go many ways. But I cannot see the groups involved in the fighting at the moment being very fond of Russia or Iran.
Pleased by this, the circuit makes passing too hard.
It's a colourful spectacle though - all that orange in the stands. And it's in Europe. I know F1 is global these days but there's something about Europe for motor racing. That old school, bygone era glamour, the smell of petrol, the models and minor aristocrats hanging around the pits, drivers with outstanding names like "Vittorio Brambilla", in it for the buzz not the bucks.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
Yeah, but Corbyn - who had a considerable following - would not even say if he'd been vaccinated. At a time when we needed as many jabs in arms as possible. If he should be damned for anything, it is that.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
Do you seriously think that whatever regime replaces Assad will be any different?
Well, they will obviously be different. Whether they are 'better' from our perspective is another matter.
There are many groups, and it is far from clear which, if any, will take over when the war is over - especially as the main groups are actually loose coalitions of smaller groups, often geographically, rather then ideologically, based.
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Kurds will grab a large portion of northeast Syria, which Turkey will immediately try to stop being a viable state. As for the rest: I've little idea, and it could go many ways. But I cannot see the groups involved in the fighting at the moment being very fond of Russia or Iran.
The Kurds certainly aren't. I think, too, that they'll try and hive off Northern Iraq to begin creating a viable Kurdistan.
Meanwhile in the Real world... Uk most dam ing watchdog report on Boris and successive Tory Govt failures in Prison Service. 5 years over run 2028 to 2033 and 5 billion over budget
Massive Tory failure on law and order
This mornings press release from the Labour Party.
Just a nuance of balance and fact amidst right wing dystopia muddle and distortions.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
Yeah, but Corbyn - who had a considerable following - would not even say if he'd been vaccinated. At a time when we needed as many jabs in arms as possible. If he should be damned for anything, it is that.
I heard it said by a number of crumblies, that the example of the Queen and DoE publicly taking the vaccination was useful in persuading that cohort.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
Yeah, but Corbyn - who had a considerable following - would not even say if he'd been vaccinated. At a time when we needed as many jabs in arms as possible. If he should be damned for anything, it is that.
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
Not very easy to do meaningful preparatory work when Sunak, Truss, Boris, Hunt and Co had a bloody great hidden sink hole under the Foundations of 11 Downing Street...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They are another bunch of roasters , have more faces than the town clock, so who knows which way they will face.
Turkey doesn't want any fighting in the Black Sea, I suspect, for two reasons. One, it's got a very long coastline along said sea, and fighting is likely to have consequences for that coastline. Two, to get to and from warships have to pass through Istanbul and Turkey REALLY doesn't want the possibility of two or more hostile vessels doing so at the same time.
The military clauses of the Montreux Convention were about two things - protecting civilian traffic and Turkish neutrality.
Previously, Turkey would have to pick sides. Which meant Turkey was, itself, a target in war.
The Convention meant that Turkey could be neutral, and also protected that status.
It’s actually quite scary to be in Istanbul and realise just how much shipping goes through the city. Almost all Ukranian food exports for a start, which wouldn’t particularly like to meet a Russian warship coming the other way! One can understand why Turkey wouldn’t want to be seen as taking sides in any conflict affecting the region.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
Yeah, but Corbyn - who had a considerable following - would not even say if he'd been vaccinated. At a time when we needed as many jabs in arms as possible. If he should be damned for anything, it is that.
I heard it said by a number of crumblies, that the example of the Queen and DoE publicly taking the vaccination was useful in persuading that cohort.
I also like the fact that our politicians generally waited their turns for the jabs, rather than rushing the queue as some countries did (wasn't there a scandal in Spain over that?)
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
Erdogan is much of a muchness
May I remind you that I have to be careful when commenting on Turkish politics...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Only 1 confirmed but I know you are an apologist for the Al Qaeda linked Syrian militant rebels
No, I'm not an 'apologist' for them. The only group I have much sympathy for are the Kurds, and I have reservations over them because of the links with the PKK. I have stated this on here many times.
I will respond in kind: you are an apologist for the Assad regime, which has used chemical weapons on civilians in the past, and which is working closely with Russia and Iran.
Fair enough if you don't support the rebels. But that does not mean you should support Assad's regime either. In that case, don't support anyone, and give your prayers to the innocent civilians caught between these groups.
But supporting Assad? Shame on you.
You are an apologist for Al Qaeda linked militants in Syria, because if Assad falls they are who will replace him not the Kurds. Endangering our national security far more than Assad ever could.
Shame on you
It’s not pushing propaganda to point out that Assad’s regime is one of the most murderous in the region, is now tottering, and its fall would be a blow to Russia.
That does not mean its replacement would be any better.
Compared to Iran or Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Hamas controlled Gaza or Saudi Arabia, Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate.
Its fall would be a disaster for us and the West as much as Russia, as Syria would be taken over by Al Qaeda linked militants and would provide a major base for jihadi terrorism to export to western cities
"Assad's regime is arguably relatively moderate."
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
Do you seriously think that whatever regime replaces Assad will be any different?
IIRC the money lenders were kicked out not bailed out by Jesus.
It's a discussion isn't it? Should people, who created tiers of financial products, taking commission at each step, creating a liability considerably in excess of the underlying asset value and underestimating the risk, who then were bailed out by the taxpayer at considerable cost to avoid economic collapse, be criticised? That's before we discuss some international swaps that were designed to give a tax credit at both ends in the different tax regimes.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
A Coalition of National Unity would have been a good idea, but I don't think one which Boris would have entertained for a moment.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
Yeah, but Corbyn - who had a considerable following - would not even say if he'd been vaccinated. At a time when we needed as many jabs in arms as possible. If he should be damned for anything, it is that.
I heard it said by a number of crumblies, that the example of the Queen and DoE publicly taking the vaccination was useful in persuading that cohort.
I also like the fact that our politicians generally waited their turns for the jabs, rather than rushing the queue as some countries did (wasn't there a scandal in Spain over that?)
Yes.
Peru as ever, managed to set the standard. The politicians negotiated a deal with China for the vaccine that basically didn't work. They paid over the odds for this - the strong probability is that they were bribed. Then they wrote into the deal that they (the Peruvian politicians) and hangers on would get it first. Then they were surprised that the details of the deal leaked and were not met with approval by the Peruvian people.
Unions may though ask Members to opt in or out of the Political Levy as has been done widely in the past and then argue its perfectly fair to divide the donation by the number "opting in".
That would also be perfectly fair if you assume most large donations are from individuals.
What does need stopping is donations from overseas or more specifically NON UK taxpayers. By all means if you pay Taxes here you can donate, if you don't you can't!
Perhaps donations should be limited to those who are net contributors to the Treasury?
How about votes as well?
I have been a strong advocate of ‘no representation without taxation’ for years.
Give double votes to additional rate tax payers.
This is how democracy dies, step by step - unless I've stumbled into the PB Sarcasm-a-thon by mistake?
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
I think this graphic clarifies the Syrian situation well:
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
I think this graphic clarifies the Syrian situation well:
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
That's utterly inaccurate. Turkey doesn't have a gun pointing at the Kurds...
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
It was not Reeves but Liz Truss. Reeves needed to wait while the OBR did its thing because Liz Truss had shown what happens when you bypass the OBR.
ETA what else it shows is the consequences of taking money from pensions are arguably too strict in severely limiting pension relief on future contributions. I'd imagine this is top stop self-employed sharks recycling pension money each month but babies and bathwater...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
I think this graphic clarifies the Syrian situation well:
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
That's utterly inaccurate. Turkey doesn't have a gun pointing at the Kurds...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
I think this graphic clarifies the Syrian situation well:
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
That's utterly inaccurate. Turkey doesn't have a gun pointing at the Kurds...
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
Russia is pink lint and will need all it has to survive in Ukraine. More ships for Ukraine to sink mind you, I bet they are not headed to Black sea.
Turkey would surely block any warships entering the Black Sea from Syria.
They can't if the designated home base for the ship is one of the Black Sea ports. However they could stop them leaving again.
I believe that's correct. But AIUI the Montreux convention states the 'home base' cannot be changed at a time of war. So Russia cannot just 'rehome' ships it wants to send. (From what I've read; I've not actually read the convention...)
Importantly, this seems to be the interpretation that Turkey is using for passage into the Black Sea.
Yes, Russia’s unlikely to be able to get them back to the Black Sea, not that they’re likely to last too long there anyway once the Ukranians get them in their sights. Perhaps they’ll be doing a tour of the Arctic over the winter, annoyingly various European navies along the way?
It's a long sail with no friendly port nearby. Quite possibly break down, or perhaps have a Potempkin like mutiny. It's not as if the Russian Navy has a great track record.
Watch out for Japanese torpedo boats in the North Sea….
Bankers deserve all they get for their sloppy dress standards wiping out Savile Row. After the GFC (which started in America) bank staff were encouraged to remove their ties in order to confuse pitchfork-wielding mobs.
"Which started in America"
Been a few years since that catchphrase was in common use, but at one time it was ubiquitous.
The master's intro to the annual magazine from my Fen Poly college in 2008 started with "The financial crisis, which started in America...". Before then, his Labour ties were known but he was scrupulously even handed. Buf that year, even he couldn't help himself.
In other news, the Russian military ships that were docked in Tartus, Syria, all appear to have left.
I wonder why?
It looks as if the Assad regime is crumbling and Russia has decided it can no longer afford to sustain it. We have yet to discover if this proves a good thing or not.
Meanwhile it looks as if President Yoon is going to be impeached as early as today for his martial law efforts.
Interesting times and Trump hasn't even taken office yet.
You notice that your story is about Syrian claims. I might suggest to you that the claims might be somewhat bogus, or include innocent civilians as 'insurgents'.
Who needs our Saturday morning Russian bots when we have HYUFD to push the pro-Russian line?
Well at least I am not pushing pro Al Qaeda militant propoganda
Neither is anyone else.
Syria is a really complicated mess, and HYUFD is not someone who allows complexity to get in the way of his thinking. The forces who have taken Aleppo are not just HTS, but include, for example, Ajnad al-Kavkaz, who had Al Qaeda links, but have subsequently distanced themselves from AQ and have, most recently, been active fighting for Ukraine in the Battle of Bakhmut.
I think this graphic clarifies the Syrian situation well:
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
Seems a bit simplistic - there are at least another dozen factions to include.
Meanwhile in the Real world... Uk most dam ing watchdog report on Boris and successive Tory Govt failures in Prison Service. 5 years over run 2028 to 2033 and 5 billion over budget
Massive Tory failure on law and order
This mornings press release from the Labour Party.
Just a nuance of balance and fact amidst right wing dystopia muddle and distortions.
Problem is the muddle and distortions are coming from No 10 and Reeves with the public reacting as they plummet in the polls, despite your comical attempts to blame everything on the 'right wing' who certainly are not the majority of public opinion
The big question - are they Protestant Muslims or Catholic Muslims?
The dark joke - before the Peace Process, NI was very safe for minorities. The Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland told me this was because the haters had all the hate they needed. He also said that if the Troubles ever stopped (this was the end of the 80s), then....
Good morning everyone - I've been out and about early.
A fascinating conversation on Silicon Curtain with a Westerner managing an independent military training organisation in Ukraine, comparing and contrasting Nato vs left-over Russian cultural models, command styles, and his experiences.
Kevin Leach is the main director for Sabre Training Advisory Group, a professional military training non-profit.
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
Your prejudices are showing. Jeremy Corbyn would hardly be opposed to state control during the pandemic (or at any other time).
IIRC the money lenders were kicked out not bailed out by Jesus.
It's a discussion isn't it? Should people, who created tiers of financial products, taking commission at each step, creating a liability considerably in excess of the underlying asset value and underestimating the risk, who then were bailed out by the taxpayer at considerable cost to avoid economic collapse, be criticised? That's before we discuss some international swaps that were designed to give a tax credit at both ends in the different tax regimes.
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
It was not Reeves but Liz Truss. Reeves needed to wait while the OBR did its thing because Liz Truss had shown what happens when you bypass the OBR.
ETA what else it shows is the consequences of taking money from pensions are arguably too strict in severely limiting pension relief on future contributions. I'd imagine this is top stop self-employed sharks recycling pension money each month but babies and bathwater...
Truss was a disaster but lets not forget she was out of office in 6 weeks and Sunak with Hunt repaired the damage and had the UK growing again
Reeves in particular created a jobs and growth destroying budget that will see interest rates higher and for longer and over the next few years causing sustained pain for the electorate
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
Your prejudices are showing. Jeremy Corbyn would hardly be opposed to state control during the pandemic (or at any other time).
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
Your prejudices are showing. Jeremy Corbyn would hardly be opposed to state control during the pandemic (or at any other time).
See my later post: Corbyn refused to say whether he had been vaxxed or not. AFAICR he was the only prominent politician who did so. He has, and had, a significant following amongst groups who do not necessarily trust the government, and amongst whom take-up of the vaccine has been lower.
"Kherson’s civilians have been, since midsummer, the target of an experiment without precedent in modern European warfare: a concerted Russian campaign to empty a city by stalking its residents with attack drones.
The killer machines, sometimes by the swarm, hover above homes, buzz into buildings and chase people down streets in their cars, riding bicycles or simply on foot. The targets are not soldiers, or tanks, but civilian life...
Since mid-July, Kherson and its neighboring villages along the western side of the Dnipro river have suffered more than 9,500 attacks with small drones, killing at least 37 people and injuring hundreds more, according to Prokudin, regional prosecutors and police." https://x.com/RALee85/status/1864197164152365094
Very similar component of the Gaza special military operation.
"Once it had reformed council tax, Labour should dare to charge capital gains tax on everyone selling their primary residence. Treating bricks and mortar like ordinary purchases would stop the “property ladder” being a tax-free nest egg where savings are invested unproductively. Can you imagine the outrage?"
Sorry about this O/T. On the news this morning they mentioned that the UK have ordered 5m bird flu vaccines for human variant. The report went on to at they were for front line staff and the most vulnerable.
It kicked off an internal debate about the issue of protecting the most vulnerable in a pandemic again.
One side of me, the vaguely human part with a tiny heart and soul was thinking that of course a society needs to protect the vulnerable, old, weak, poorest, northerners and then the other part was thinking - didn’t we try this last time and absolutely screw the country, the economy, childhoods, mental health and so on.
Should, come the next pandemic (sooner than we think I think) we decide to be harsh and protect the young, the future as the priority?
I don’ t have the answer because they are both valid moral positions - protect the vulnerable/protect the future - but I worry that the Covid Inquiry has been so busy settling scores, bashing political enemies, points scoring, when the priority should have been - what do we do next time and let’s work it out quickly.
I know there are older members of the PB community and it would be interesting to hear if you would say “we have had our innings, let’s not ruin it for the young again” or would you understandably think that you have the right, and everyone else the obligation, to protect the vulnerable first?
One of the big failings of Britain's response to Covid was reacting to it as though it was flu, and not adjusting the response as we learned more about Covid. Britain risks making the same mistake with a future flu pandemic, and treating it like a repeat of Covid.
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
For all his faults, things that Dominic Cummings got right were the need to gather large amounts of data and get mass testing underway as quickly as possible. That, and explaining scientific principals such as exponential growth to the arts majors that dominate the No.10 SpAd class.
However awful people think Boris was, I am *really* glad that Corbyn was not in charge when the double shocks of both Covid and Ukraine hit. He would have been hideously awful on both.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
Your prejudices are showing. Jeremy Corbyn would hardly be opposed to state control during the pandemic (or at any other time).
Corbyn is an anit-vaxxer, for start.
And opposed AD. In parts of the Left you do sometimes find that combination of big state economics with distrust of the state in all other areas.
"Once it had reformed council tax, Labour should dare to charge capital gains tax on everyone selling their primary residence. Treating bricks and mortar like ordinary purchases would stop the “property ladder” being a tax-free nest egg where savings are invested unproductively. Can you imagine the outrage?"
Just 6 local by-elections tomorrow. We have Lab defences in Cardiff, Stirling, and Wokingham; an SNP defence in Glasgow; and a Lib Dem defence in South Oxfordshire.
Long miles are started by small steps. Those small steps that have never even started in the past 14 years. Bridget Phillipson has made an excellent start at Education and Education needs an Education Minister for the full term and not a new one every Christmas and another one in between.....Important and vital first steps to solve the SEND calamity https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-specialist-places-to-be-created-in-mainstream-schools
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
It was not Reeves but Liz Truss. Reeves needed to wait while the OBR did its thing because Liz Truss had shown what happens when you bypass the OBR.
ETA what else it shows is the consequences of taking money from pensions are arguably too strict in severely limiting pension relief on future contributions. I'd imagine this is top stop self-employed sharks recycling pension money each month but babies and bathwater...
Truss was a disaster but lets not forget she was out of office in 6 weeks and Sunak with Hunt repaired the damage and had the UK growing again
Reeves in particular created a jobs and growth destroying budget that will see interest rates higher and for longer and over the next few years causing sustained pain for the electorate
Excuse me...
Can you remind us what the Growth was in Q3 and Q4 2023??....
"Once it had reformed council tax, Labour should dare to charge capital gains tax on everyone selling their primary residence. Treating bricks and mortar like ordinary purchases would stop the “property ladder” being a tax-free nest egg where savings are invested unproductively. Can you imagine the outrage?"
Fine policy thinking for the plebs from Polly, was it written in her Lewes multi million pound property or her Tuscan multi million pound villa second home?
Yes, I’m sure there will be some wriggle that unions are a lot of individuals but somehow corporations aren’t.
This has been an argument that has gone round and round. The trade off has always been capping corporations and individuals if you cap unions. Labour has always resisted.
Just to be clear this will MASSIVELY tilt the political battlefield in Labour’s favour. It’s far worse than ID requirements, redistricting or anything else that has been suggested over the years. I assume we will see a lot of posts from those who complained about ID condemning this proposal.
At least it stops faceless tax haven dodgy donations
Unions are a large number of individuals, if there is an opt out from the political levy then each one is making an individual decision to donate. There is nothing wrong with that. As a shareholder or employee of a corporation I have no say in political donations and can't opt out my individual portion. However, this is really about super wealthy individuals being capped, which with the trends in funding will affect all parties, even Labour is becoming dependent on super wealthy individuals.
"Once it had reformed council tax, Labour should dare to charge capital gains tax on everyone selling their primary residence. Treating bricks and mortar like ordinary purchases would stop the “property ladder” being a tax-free nest egg where savings are invested unproductively. Can you imagine the outrage?"
Comments
It's quite similar to the other evil regimes you mention: it's 'moderate' only if you agree with and support the regime. Go against the regime, and you're in trouble. Which is a bi reason the civil war started in the first place.
And I don't call that in any way 'moderate'.
But you are supporting Syria, Iran and Russia. I find that quite an odd position for you to take.
But yeah, the title stuff worked out nicely. Even finished mildly green on Norris (29 for the title then hedged to finish slightly ahead).
I cannot see an easy middle ground though, unless parties state how many candidates they will stand at the next GE. Which will be hard four or five years in advance, or if a GE might be called at any time.
I also expect that dark money, think tanks etc will have a sudden boom. "We are not affiliated with any party. We are concerned with these issues. Well, there is a by-election, so we are presenting the voters with our take on the issues. By house to house leaflet drop."
A lot would depend in the long term how "Islamist" the new regime would be. It would only harm us if it supported terrorism outside Syria, if it was merely fundamentalist then no worse than Saudi or the Gulf States who we often see as allies.
I can see Russia having sent some vessels from (say) the Pacific fleet to Syria, as it means they have got more vessels in an area that is of mor geopolitical interest to them at the moment.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/private-pensions/i-raided-my-pension-in-a-panic-now-the-regulator-wont-help/ (£££)
First world problems.
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_IV,_Florida_Constitution#Section_3
The incumbent is a lady by the name of Jeanette Nunez, elected alongside DeSantis in 2019.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Florida
It's a combination of weak, incompetent and completely amoral - to the extent he invited in the armed forces of two of the world's more noxious regimes (Russia and Iran) to maintain his otherwise crumbling regime. And was happy to have them conduct mass bombing and chemical warfare campaigns against his own civilians.
We have little idea who would take over if the regime fell. The opposition is a disparate bunch ranging from extreme islamists to democratic moderates.
But the point is the regime is completely unable to sustain itself, whatever we do.
And the disaster has already been visited on the west. 20% of the entire population are refugees into Turkey and Europe - driven there by a Russian backed regime. That has already severely destabilised the entire EU.
You basically have ignored the history of the last decade and a half.
Musk is donating to a political party. Blackrock have successfully lobbied for infrastructure investment projects.
(I'm unable to find any sources on whether Blackrock has made political donations in the UK, but even if they do it's likely that they would be even-handed as they want to profit from government contracts regardless of the ruling party.)
Musk is looking to install his chosen political party as the government (presumably for profit), Blackrock are just looking to make profits from the government regardless of the party.
I'm sure you won't read below but ...
The UK requires significant investment in infrastructure.
There is no appetite for that capital spending to be funded by tax increases or completely by increased Govt borrowing (a different discussion).
So Labour looked to the financial institutions.
Blackrock manage an enormous quantity of money which they need to invest to justify their fees, whether putting renewal of UK infrastructure in the hands of Blackrock is a good idea is debatable https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/the-blackrock-letters-inside-labours-close-partnership
Govts have to be nice about commercial partners even if it's nauseating and until it all goes wrong.
In a spirit of charity, I can see HYUFD's point. AFAIK the Assad regime doesn't lock up women for simply being women, as, for example, the Taliban do. And, again AFAIK, Hamas doesn't, either.
However I think I'd use 'less extreme' rather than 'relatively moderate'.
Given how the rest of the Russian military is ‘working’ right now, a mutiny or a breakdown doesn’t sound too far fetched. Using golf buggies in place of armoured personnel carriers was probably a new low for their turning of soldiers into cannon fodder.
The killer machines, sometimes by the swarm, hover above homes, buzz into buildings and chase people down streets in their cars, riding bicycles or simply on foot. The targets are not soldiers, or tanks, but civilian life...
Since mid-July, Kherson and its neighboring villages along the western side of the Dnipro river have suffered more than 9,500 attacks with small drones, killing at least 37 people and injuring hundreds more, according to Prokudin, regional prosecutors and police."
https://x.com/RALee85/status/1864197164152365094
Most other current wars are not so simple, being mostly a bunch of scumbags that would make the world a better place if they all lost.
Massive Tory failure on law and order
Though if Reeves had done the preparatory work she should have done in opposition then there wouldn't have been a two month vacuum which filled with financial scare stories.
So moderate that a quarter of the population are refugees in Turkey, Lebanon etc
In particular, Covid had a strong age gradient in mortality risk, the old were vulnerable, but the young were [mostly] fine. Previous flu pandemics have seen a high risk of mortality for the old and for the young. So, if Britain reacts to a future flu pandemic as though it's Covid, then the risk is that schools end up like nursing homes did during Covid - avoidable incubators for mass casualty events.
Above all Britain needs to have a flexible approach that can be refined as evidence is gathered.
The Tories really are in trouble if her has taken this step.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/formula-1-to-celebrate-final-dutch-grand-prix-in-2026-after-one-year.7EYLHSMGIJyqefI5tMjLrZ
Pleased by this, the circuit makes passing too hard.
IMV Johnson should have formed a national coalition government when Covid struck, to last the period of the outbreak (which would probably have been two years). That would have spread the responsibility and blame around a fair bit.
UK services sector ‘close to stalling’ in November after Budget tax rises
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-services-sector-close-to-stalling-in-november-after-budget-tax-rises/ar-AA1vflJT?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=4f082798328642c7b41813bf04b3c49f&ei=42
Previously, Turkey would have to pick sides. Which meant Turkey was, itself, a target in war.
The Convention meant that Turkey could be neutral, and also protected that status.
And I wonder if Corbyn would have risen to the challenge; he certainly wouldn't have partied the time away as Boris did. To be fair, once he'd recovered.
There are many groups, and it is far from clear which, if any, will take over when the war is over - especially as the main groups are actually loose coalitions of smaller groups, often geographically, rather then ideologically, based.
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say the Kurds will grab a large portion of northeast Syria, which Turkey will immediately try to stop being a viable state. As for the rest: I've little idea, and it could go many ways. But I cannot see the groups involved in the fighting at the moment being very fond of Russia or Iran.
OECD increase UK Growth Forecast for 2025 from previous 1.2% to 1.7% due to substantial budget increase in funding to Public Services.
Source OECD
Should people, who created tiers of financial products, taking commission at each step, creating a liability considerably in excess of the underlying asset value and underestimating the risk, who then were bailed out by the taxpayer at considerable cost to avoid economic collapse, be criticised?
That's before we discuss some international swaps that were designed to give a tax credit at both ends in the different tax regimes.
Peru as ever, managed to set the standard. The politicians negotiated a deal with China for the vaccine that basically didn't work. They paid over the odds for this - the strong probability is that they were bribed. Then they wrote into the deal that they (the Peruvian politicians) and hangers on would get it first. Then they were surprised that the details of the deal leaked and were not met with approval by the Peruvian people.
"But the OECD warned that the pickup was likely to be fleeting, with growth set to slow to 1.3% in 2026."
"The OECD said British inflation was likely to average 2.7% in 2025 - higher than in any other G7 country."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-set-for-faster-growth-in-2025-but-high-inflation-too-oecd-forecasts/ar-AA1vfge9?ocid=BingNewsSerp
School tells Muslim girls it’s ‘not safe’ for them
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/northern_ireland
Though when you add in the other international interests it gets a bit more complicated.
ETA what else it shows is the consequences of taking money from pensions are arguably too strict in severely limiting pension relief on future contributions. I'd imagine this is top stop self-employed sharks recycling pension money each month but babies and bathwater...
Been a few years since that catchphrase was in common use, but at one time it was ubiquitous.
The master's intro to the annual magazine from my Fen Poly college in 2008 started with "The financial crisis, which started in America...". Before then, his Labour ties were known but he was scrupulously even handed. Buf that year, even he couldn't help himself.
The dark joke - before the Peace Process, NI was very safe for minorities. The Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland told me this was because the haters had all the hate they needed. He also said that if the Troubles ever stopped (this was the end of the 80s), then....
A fascinating conversation on Silicon Curtain with a Westerner managing an independent military training organisation in Ukraine, comparing and contrasting Nato vs left-over Russian cultural models, command styles, and his experiences.
Kevin Leach is the main director for Sabre Training Advisory Group, a professional military training non-profit.
Really interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOCTo6Gt-cw
Reeves in particular created a jobs and growth destroying budget that will see interest rates higher and for longer and over the next few years causing sustained pain for the electorate
We needed jabs in arms. He did not help there.
(*) https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthinequalities/bulletins/coronavirusandvaccinationratesinadultsbysociodemographiccharacteristicandoccupationengland/december2020tomarch2023
Toynbee - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/03/george-osborne-wealth-tax-labour-inheritocracy-work-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves
Yep. I can. One term would be guaranteed.
Can you remind us what the Growth was in Q3 and Q4 2023??....
As a shareholder or employee of a corporation I have no say in political donations and can't opt out my individual portion.
However, this is really about super wealthy individuals being capped, which with the trends in funding will affect all parties, even Labour is becoming dependent on super wealthy individuals.